NYT page one: Photo of wounded, bleeding Marine
posted at 7:45 pm on November 4, 2006 by Allahpundit
They’re working their way up. Last weekend they ran a photo series on military funerals; today they’ve got actual blood, albeit from a Marine who survived. Next will be photos of soldiers dead on the battlefield. And then, finally, shots of troops being killed as the bullets pass through them.
Unless CNN gets there first.
The shame of it is, the photo series in its entirety isn’t defeatist. There are actually two series, “The Medic” and “The Sniper,” both of which are worth viewing but especially the latter: watch Sgt. Jesse Leach take command when one of his boys goes down, to the point of placing himself between the sniper and the wounded officer. If the Times wasn’t a volunteer in the left’s GOTV effort, this is the photo that would have run on one:

If you do click over to look at the pics, note whom they’re credited to. I wonder if the guy who sniped this Marine knows this guy.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The NYT thinks it’s so clever by staging these releases.
This encourages voters who’re not Democrats to go out and vote in greater and greater numbers.
Entelechy on November 4, 2006 at 7:53 PM
Who are they credited to? I couldn’t find that.
Christoph on November 4, 2006 at 8:05 PM
Honestly, the photo series doesn’t inspire my voting philosophy, but rather, it makes me very proud of our fighting forces. It makes me glad I’m an American. I’m truly inspired to see the other soldiers rush to the aid of a fallen comrade – even placing themselves in danger to do so. Such courage! Thank you NYT for making me proud of our military!
thedecider on November 4, 2006 at 8:08 PM
This picture, the Marines actions, says it all. The Marine in the picture understands something Rosie O’Fatone, Micheal Moron, and other lefties can not fathom. On the ground its not about the war, its not about the cause. Its about the guy/gal to your left and right. You are all they have and they are all you have. If one lets the other down then all is lost. God bless all those on active duty.
SPIFF1669 on November 4, 2006 at 8:33 PM
I remember when the Mn. National Guard photo came out. The NY Post was the only NY Metropolitan newspaper to put it in their paper, and the front page too. I work in an office where we had about 5 newspapers lined up (I didn’t see the NY Sun), all the other papers had either bodies, how many died and about the wounded. So vat else is new?
StuLongIsland on November 4, 2006 at 8:37 PM
They never show dead or wounded jihadis, ’cause, ya know, that might *OFFEND* somebody. And we can’t have THAT now CAN we? Allah forbid we offend muslims, they’re very sensitive don’tcha know?
Tony737 on November 4, 2006 at 8:45 PM
Joao Silva
Pablo on November 4, 2006 at 9:01 PM
Actually it inspires me to keep voting Republican and to support our troops.
vcferlita on November 4, 2006 at 9:13 PM
The article itself didn’t bother me nearly as much as a policy it describes:
Yeah, this has really worked so far. It’s just as Ilario Pantano describes it in his book. The troops aren’t being allowed to “take care of business” because of political correctness in the military and civilian leadership. No, they can’t just carpet-bomb the country and it is important to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible, but why not try “winning their trust” by kicking some serious insurgent ass? It’s pretty obvious that the Iraqis will only respect the winner, and right now they can’t be blamed for thinking we’ll lose. Or walk away without winning. Which is the same thing, isn’t it (think Vietnam)? It’s in the Iraqi people’s best interest to support (or at least appear not to be against) the side that will be around longer, and as long as our troops can’t eradicate the enemy, you know who that will be.
Side note: If you watch the sniper slide show with audio, note that the Iraqi soldier runs away when he sees that Valdez-Castillo has been shot.
insomni on November 4, 2006 at 9:27 PM
Thanks, Pablo. Enlightning.
Christoph on November 4, 2006 at 9:27 PM
I thought they were rather good, regardless of them having being from the NYT. If anything, it just reinforces the question as to why there are only, what, 9 reporters embedded with the troops in Iraq? If I have to click on NYT links instead of Michael Yon links to get this stuff these days, then something’s going seriously awry.
..Or perhaps, in a way, things are as they are actually supposed to be..
Reaps on November 4, 2006 at 9:33 PM
The “Sniper” story strikes me as war reporting at its finest, which was simultaneously completely overwhelmed by combat bravery at its finest. Chivers–good job. Sgt. Leach–truly the angel of our best nature. God Bless You!
cms on November 4, 2006 at 9:38 PM
Amen.
My Father fought in Europe in WW2, and then he came home and started a family and lived a normal life. He saw the blood and the dismembered bodies and the horrors of war. He killed Germans with his .30 cal Browning machine gun. He didn’t glory in what he had done, but he wasn’t ashamed of it either. He simply accepted that there was an enemy that he had to risk his life to fight. And when the battle was over he came back home and resumed being a typical American.
These so-called ‘Americans’ at the NYT will never know what it’s like to put their lives on the line for their country, or to respect and love this country. They are bloodsucking parasites intent on destroying their noble host.
infidel4life on November 4, 2006 at 9:39 PM
I can’t understand the whole characterization of the war as a disaster.
Marines in the montage were acting as they were trained to act. They seem to still be teaching young Marines the intricacies of fire and maneuver. We can still see the principle of junior taking over when senior are incapacitated. The chain of command and command and control seem, in this case, to have been maintained. That’s how movement to contact works.
On the other hand, the terrorists digging in, hiding so it’s hard to ferret them out. That’s what you count on an enemy to do: make it difficult to get at them.
…sounds like war to me.
The whole “disaster” thing must arise from the ethic which says that if *any* of our young Marines gets hurt, it’s too high a price. If that were the case, I’d have to ask why we spend so much to recruit, train, deploy and maintain them.
Money is only valuable if its in circulation. The military is one whopping luxury of fit young men in flashy uniforms useful only for parades if they aren’t used when the nation needs to use them. It’s the using of them that gets messy. Some of them get hurt. Some of the die. It happens on both sides, theirs and ours.
…so, again, that’s war.
That is unless we’re going to actually listen to the utopians who think that militaries are an unfortunate and unnecessary feature of nations, no longer needed by “modern” humankind. Personally, I don’t think that humankind has evolved the point that negotiation is the be-all/do-all/end-all of conflict resolution between contesting parties. Recent history seems to bear this out.
If we’re not supposed to defend ourselves, if America isn’t worth the lives of our young men, then let’s not only disband the military. But, if this is so, let’s also disband Congress, the judiciary and send the President packing. Mind you, that’ll also necessitate sending the press packing as well…because, in short order, we’ll not have a country to defend.
Maybe we’re not supposed to defend ourselves *at* this juncture, against this enemy. Maybe it’s just that we don’t understand this enemy, because somehow they — unlike the rest of the jihadis from Manchester to Jerusalem to Kuala Lampur — managed to keep themselves pure of the taint of “Death to America”. If this is the case, would someone tell me who we *are* supposed to fight to keep these 7th Century barbarians from attacking us again…as they have vowed to do, quite publicly and quite often, from the pulpit to the soundstages of Al-Jazeera.
…or, we can throw off the shackles, stop navel-gazing about Gitmo and all those “secret interrogation sites”. We can stop tolerating folks making movies about killing our President and celebrities and politicians musing over the moral fiber of our troops. We can stop worrying about whether the jihadi the young Marine just shot deserved a little more ordnance. We can simply fight the war to win the peace and the ordeal can be over for *everyone*, Iraqi and American.
There doesn’t seem to be any question that our troops are performing up to standards. It’s just the bozos we have here at home, fat and sassy when they aren’t all snug in their beds, who’re the ones who’re the “disaster”.
The least costly war is the war you get on with, not extending a day or hour or minute once its been engaged upon, by fruitless “what if-ing”.
…as they used to tell me in my little niche in the Army that we’re there to close with and kill or capture the enemy. Maybe we need to get on with it, expecting to take our lumps, see families suffer, see civilians suffer as well. Modern wars aren’t like the wars once fought on the same ground. The phalanx today is a missle. Swords were more discriminating…but I wouldn’t pack our young men off to Iraq with swords. We fight with bombs smarter than they’ve ever been…and young men smarter than they’ve ever been, too.
Let our Marines be Marines. Let our soldiers, airmen, sailors and contractors do their jobs. Let the Iraqis have security and peace.
Puritan1648 on November 4, 2006 at 9:51 PM
Turn em’ loose…..turn em’ loose…….
That is what the enemy(terrorists and MSM) is truly afraid of. Turning em’ loose. That is why they conduct their media war against the American people. My god, turn em’ loose. With men like these it is no wonder the terrorists and MSM are afraid. We would win. They can’t have that.
My God people, turn em’ loose.
Limerick on November 4, 2006 at 9:52 PM
All people see is US Soldiers being picked off one by one, like sitting ducks. That the message they wanted to send and that’s the one they sent. It was meant to influence an election they fear is slipping away due to the Dems speaking their real minds. You know, measuring drapes and disrespecting the intelligence of our troops.
War reporting at its finest? You think pictures like that were splashed across the front pages during WWII or Korea?
And, what about the family of that soldier? Why does the Times care more about Jihadists dignity than the dignity of a US soldier?
It’s disgraceful.
TheBigOldDog on November 4, 2006 at 9:58 PM
Allah,
Off topic but I thought you might like to know, Kurzweil’s gonna be on BookTV InDepth live for three hours Sunday @ noon eastern. Should be good.
The Apologist on November 4, 2006 at 10:03 PM
All that series of pic did for me is.
Make me wish I was young enought to re-enlist and
and serve under the command of Sgt. Jesse Leach
Texyank on November 4, 2006 at 10:04 PM
It’s ever more obvious that liberal elites have no idea what our military is all about.
SouthernGent on November 4, 2006 at 10:04 PM
And furthermore, why doesn’t the Times show pictures of women and children blow to bits by suicide bombers? Why don’t they show the terrorists holding up severed heads of their victims? That’s all part of this war too. Why don’t they show the splattered bodies of people who jumped from the WTC towers rather than be burned alive? No, only wounded, bleeding soldier are “Fit to print” by that disgraceful rag of paper.
TheBigOldDog on November 4, 2006 at 10:05 PM
Is it obvious that the NYT is lucky the posters on this thread arent’t in the neighborhood?…….here kitty kitty………
Limerick on November 4, 2006 at 10:14 PM
…if they’d've released information about Slapton Sands and Operation Tiger, we’d never’ve gone into Normandy. If we’d've reported every mosquito bite, let alone every casualty on Guadalcanal, mothers nationwide would’ve been up in arms.
For every victory up to final victory in World War II, there was a Dieppe, for every Midway there was Coral Sea, for every El Alamein there was a Kassarine Pass. People in the ’40′s maybe didn’t *want* to see the casualties, and were content to get by on Hollywood’s decidedly more supportive “take” on that war, rather than face up to the daily grind that it must’ve been.
We won in the Pacific by hunkering down behind Tarawa’s sea wall, fighting tooth and nail on Iwo and incurring terrible casualties on Okinawa. In Europe, our paratroopers were chopped up at Ste. Mere-Eglise and fighting toward Nijmegen and Grave. Bastogne and the Hurtgen Forest were sites of incredible grit and bravery…but of incredible suffering, as well.
If you constantly rub the noses of the American people in puddles of blood, they’ll not have time to assess what’s been bought with that blood, nor will they be able to judge fairly how much more they’ll have to spend in treasure and the futures of their children because the cost of losing will get lost in the endless parade of corpses.
World War I was fought for a lot less lofty reasons than this war is based upon. Nobody’s freedom was put at risk by the killing of Franz Ferdinand, only the ambitions of men too foolish to see what they were betting on. We fought and won. This war is a lot more like Korea, with our forces trying to secure a future for a people under seige and at risk of falling under the sway of what remains a tyranny of medieval proportions.
…let’s hope that we can muster up enough sense to fight this one better than we have had to *and still do* fight in Korea. We can’t afford a draw here, folks. A line on a map and even the most rigid and well policed fence won’t keep the jihadis out.
The risk is real. So is the blood. Do we need a press cannot see beyond it?
Puritan1648 on November 4, 2006 at 10:16 PM
IMO, the photos from Iraq, published by the New York Times, are opportunities for the Bush administration to pad lock this treasonous newspaper, jail it’s CEO and editors for aiding and abetting in time of war. If there’s a rebuttal by the New York Times, of congress never declaring war, then we don’t belong in Iraq, and either do they!
byteshredder on November 4, 2006 at 10:39 PM
The Medic was good. Especially that the reporter added the faith in God they have and the Scripture they read from one of my favorites: Pslam 91: He will give his angles charge concerning you in all your ways. Amen.
Kerry eat shit.
auspatriotman on November 4, 2006 at 10:42 PM
Message for Times to terrorist: Shoot a US Soldier and get your work on our front page.
TheBigOldDog on November 4, 2006 at 10:45 PM
infidel4life, Puritan and BigOldDog-
Well said, one and all!
Vote on Tuesday for strength and survival!
(Not Flee Now, Pay later.)
profitsbeard on November 4, 2006 at 11:06 PM
But I can tell you what it is not about. Not about Israel, not about Iraq, not about Afghanistan. They are mere excuses. Algerian Muslim fundamentalists murdered 150,000 other Algerian Muslims, sometimes slitting the throats of children in front of their parents. Are you seriously telling me that this was because of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians or American foreign policy?”
He’s exasperated now, visibly angry at what he sees as a willful Western foolishness. “Stop asking what you have done wrong. Stop it! They’re slaughtering you like sheep and you still look within. You criticize your history, your institutions, your churches. Why can’t you realize that it has nothing to do with what you have done but with what they want.”
Tawfik Hamid….from Jihad Watch…..
Here is an ex-terrorist telling you why they kill. Are you listening NYT….or are you only interested in Ahmenadinijad’s viewpoint?
Limerick on November 4, 2006 at 11:14 PM
LGF has a link to a good article if anyone is interested. It’s kind of long but definitely a good read.
Scot on November 5, 2006 at 1:12 AM
What a crazy mixed-up country we live in, where a treasonous news organization is still allowed shoulder-to-shoulder access with our Marines in combat. What a slap in the face to those fine men and women putting it all on the line for us, only to have their suffering used as jihadi propaganda by OUR OWN FELLOW COUNTRYMEN.
I only wish I had a better choice to vote for on Tuesday. Spineless weasels vs. traitors and backstabbers. I only hope to live long enough to some day see the NYT heads on a pike.
Hack Ptui on November 5, 2006 at 1:28 AM
Funny and true.
Scot on November 5, 2006 at 1:38 AM
messed up. one more try.
Scot on November 5, 2006 at 1:42 AM
I knew i should’nt have drank all that nyquil. One more try.
Scot on November 5, 2006 at 1:44 AM
Sorry, i give up.
Scot on November 5, 2006 at 1:45 AM
Two quotes from George Patton spring to mind:
“I am a soldier, I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight.”
“It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived.”
ReubenJCogburn on November 5, 2006 at 1:51 AM
You know AP, I think you have this one wrong. The sniper story was moving to me and showed the character that make Marine’s the honorable and capable force they are. Maybe you’re unable to see things in any other way than political, but I think the slide show and pictures are a credit to the Marine Corps and those that serve like I used to, even the chosen cover photo. It reminds me a lot of Michael Yon’s photo essays which also portrayed wounded troops under fire, yet Michael Yon is not excoriated for essentially the same thing we see here.
The NYT certainly is a biased organization with an agenda, but this piece they got right. It accurately depicts one of many incidents that happen everyday in Iraq. I know and agree with many criticisms laid at the Times’ doorstep, but please be very cautious in ascribing intent to a piece that involves the lives of real heroes. I wonder how Lcpl Castillo and Sgt Leach would feel about this discussion, which does not center on them and their struggles, but on this partisan politcal combat between right and left.
Overall, I think the American people can handle seeing pictures of wounded soldiers and they have a right to see them. Reporting the news is more than simple statistics of the number wounded and killed. The American people sent them to war and they need to know the consequences as well as the benefits. This isn’t to say we should see blood everyday, all day either which the NYT isn’t doing but probably could.
Your post, and perhaps I’m wrong, is a minor example of what I see as a disturbing trend. It seems that some on the right are against such pictorials and portrayals in the biased MSM simply because they perceive that any display of tragedy beyond noble and definitively patriotic will undermine the cause, especially given the problems in Iraq and the growing unpopularity of the war. In order to prevent further deterioration of support, they attack anything that can remotely be seen as negative of the war – particularly photographs of casualties.
AP, I hope you are not now beginning to walk down that path because unlike most in the blogosphere you seem to have a measure of reason and the capacity to think critically. So my advice to you is that some battles with the left should be avoided – soldiers, especially wounded ones (and their families), do not want to be the truncheons with which you beat your political opponents.
Thank you.
NPP on November 5, 2006 at 2:16 AM
PS: I know the left regularly does use soldiers to make their cynically political points. Just because it’s a tactic they use does not make it ethical for others to use as well.
NPP on November 5, 2006 at 2:21 AM
Allah was’nt using soldiers to score political points, he was just pointing out the fact that the new york times is using soldiers to score political points. And he’s right, they are.
Scot on November 5, 2006 at 2:32 AM
NPP, I think they got is “right” by accident. I think they don’t realize how most people will react to these images. We see these and are proud of what our guys do/are capable of in these circumstances. They probably think most people react like they do that this is a waste/crime/tragedy. BTW, it looks to me like the guy who was shot was probably an Iraqi soldier. Is there reason to think otherwise. His uniform does not look American.
urbancenturion on November 5, 2006 at 5:02 AM
To all our Troops everywhere. Thank you. God Bless
RDS on November 5, 2006 at 6:26 AM
Okay, it’s my turn to vent….
I saw Flags of our Fathers last night. The battle scenes were a bit too raw for my wife. But as a character study of the 3 survivors of the 2nd flag raising on the mountain, it was a tour De force, especially the actor who played Marine Pvt. Ira Hayes.
This was a serious movie, emblematic of what many of our fathers and grandfathers lived through in WWII. While these three particular men were atypical in that they were excused from further combat to be used to sell War Bonds, the suffered the same survivor’s guilt that many who lived through and survived Iwo Jima, and the many other battles, had.
But what struck me seeing the picture in this thread is that the behavior shown by the Marine SGT protecting his man is was EXACTLY the behavior that the Marines exhibited on Iwo Jima. As the movie put it, they may have fought for their country, but the bled and died for the guys standing next to them.
I know that this is true today from the stories my son told me when he returned from Iraq. And I know that their leadership is just as concerned about not wasting their lives as we, their parents and spouses are. Call it “casualty adverse” or more appropriately “a legacy of Vietnam,” today’s military, in a conscious effort, has turned our armed forces into the most lethal on the planet and this has resulted in US KIA totals less than 1/2 the Iwo Jima total — incurred in only 1 month of fighting — compared to the 3 and 1/2 years of combat in Iraq.
And remember, ladies and gentlemen, we are fighting the war on terror with 1 leg tied up to both hands behind our backs — and we’re still the winner. We are NOT fighting using our total combat power.
In the car on the way home, my wife asked me how I felt about the movie. I didn’t have to waste even 10 seconds before replying.
I felt that had the 1945 media been as TREASONOUS as today’s, we would NOT have defeated Japan (or Germany) — we would have sued for peace, wasting all those lives for nothing.
Today’s media — unlike the one in WWII — is openly acting like TRAITORS. They publish classified information in violation of the law. They slant stories almost ALWAYS at the expense of our troops. They CHEER ON the enemy and happily show their propaganda. Today’s media (with the possible except of Fox News Channel) is openly against winning the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They openly lie and call it a “quagmire” when it is clearly not. They openly equate Iraq to Vietnam in a brazen effort to undermine public support for the war and sabotage the effort to fight it.
HAD IRAQ been like Vietnam (or rather the reverse), then America would have captured Hanoi in October 1965. Ho Chi Minh would have been dragged out of his spider hole, tried and convicted and sentenced to death for war crimes by March 1969. There would not have been a “Hanoi Hilton” because the US Air Force and Navy would have had complete air supremacy and North Vietnam’s missiles would be destroyed the moment they turned on their targeting radars. There would have been NO John McCain’s rotting in prison camps that openly violated the Geneva Conventions. Hanoi Jane would be on the FBI’s most wanted list for the crime of treason, the way Adam Gahdan is.
In other words, the MEDIA and their patrons, the DEMOCRATS, are FULL OF SHIT! They don’t know jack about this war; they are too busy boozing it up inside the “green line” and relying upon AL QAEDA STRINGERS to give a flying damn about the truthfulness of their product. And those who don’t “phone it in,” are actively misrepresenting what they do see — or their editors are spiking the truth because the truth doesn’t make President Bush look bad.
I am sorry to say, that there is NOT an “Ernie Pyle” among them. Not one. Pyle cared about the soldiers, about how they lived, and sadly, died. Today’s media cares only about the comfort of our enemy — be they in Abu Gharib or Gitmo. Or in delighting in showing THEIR victories over our troops.
Truthfully, I am surprised that the New York Times ran these pictures. They can’t be that stupid to knowingly give us a rallying point. I can only think that they are worried about being indicted for treason or for violating the Espionage Act for their willful publishing of classified information. So they’re trying to act as if they were “patriots” all along, instead of being handmaidens to Osama bin Laden.
Well, it won’t work.
As long as we Americans allow the media to be treasonous without repercussion, the ideologues writing and editing the stories will continue to sabotage any war America fights from now own — they will continue to support our enemies, whomever they are.
DAMN THEM ALL TO HELL!
georgej on November 5, 2006 at 7:42 AM
Amen, georgej, Amen!
Funny how threads like this one seldom attract trolls.
ReubenJCogburn on November 5, 2006 at 9:09 AM
…bravo, georgej. Very well said.
We saw the movie, as well, my wife and I. Masterful. A must see today, in times like these.
Puritan1648 on November 5, 2006 at 9:25 AM
I am happy to say that my kids (20 & 23 years of age) will be voting Republican on Tuesday. I let them decide on their own based on what they read and what they see.
If NYT, CNN, MSNBC, etc think that they can convince smart voters to vote Democratic, they are dead wrong. My kids are smart and they saw through all the smut.
A non-kerryism “If you stay in school, study hard, and make something of yourself, you can become a Republican. If you don’t, you can end up as a lier in the democratic party.”
BobK on November 5, 2006 at 9:33 AM
georgej,
Thank you.
Thanks to your son for serving his country.
You expressed my thoughts exactly, only more eloquently.
fogw on November 5, 2006 at 10:46 AM
georgej said
For a better view than the MSN crap, try any or all of these.
http://billroggio.com/
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
http://www.patdollard.com/templates/section-view.php?id=1
RDS on November 5, 2006 at 1:12 PM
Brilliantly and passionately stated georgej. Amen.
infidel4life on November 5, 2006 at 2:04 PM
There isn’t even a Gomer Pyle among them. Gomer was good-hearted, tried his best, and served his country. Pretty much the opposite of these “journalists”.
ReubenJCogburn on November 5, 2006 at 3:22 PM
Let me see, NYT releases NSA secrets, and finds out the public got pissed off for revealing those secrets and they backtracked, too little too late. Then the NYT runs an article against Bush, but it reads that Iraq was a year away from A bomb. Then they print this picture showing bravery and dedication, not something most people vote against. Their readership is dropping madly.
NYT…Clueless.
I am beginnig to like the NYT.
right2bright on November 5, 2006 at 6:11 PM
I saw the original movie about Ira Hayes starring Tony Curtis. Guess that dates me.
Anyway, Sgt. Jesse Leach needs to be on my Christmas card list.
Oops, did I piss off a news anchor? GOOD!
tormod on November 6, 2006 at 5:28 AM
The fact that this photo is news tells you something about how antisepticly this war has been covered. People need to see what is happening to our troops, it’s ugly but so is war.
honora on November 6, 2006 at 9:34 AM
I took my mother to see this (my Dad fought at Okinawa, wondered how he would have reacted to this); as is often the case, the book is much better. The narrative aspect was weak as was the editing. Good acting, great cinematography (sp?).
honora on November 6, 2006 at 9:37 AM
I think that the public is totally in the dark about this. This is never reported in the MSM whatsoever. If people understood the war was being prolonged by this PC warfighting there would be calls to actually kick some ass and finish it. What we are doing is garrisioning Iraq instead of defeating who the enemies are there.
Resolute on November 6, 2006 at 7:57 PM