EXPLOITING THE FALLEN

We already know that The New York Times is a disgrace.

The paper is in dire straits. Some of that has to do with the general change in readers' habits. More and more people are getting information from the Internet and no longer subscribe to the hard copy paper.

In addition to that, The Times has been plagued with scandal and shoddy reporting. It's credibility as a legitimate news source and the paper of record is shot in the eyes of at least half the nation. It's an anti-Bush, often anti-American, propaganda rag.

The Times doesn't hesitate to splash national secrets on its pages. Nothing is off limits when it comes to undermining the Bush Administration.

Journalistic integrity is rare at The Times, from the top to the bottom. Publisher Arthur Sulzberger has set the tone.

For example, on May 21, 2006, Sulzberger delivered a "True Confessions" commencement address at the State University of New York at New Paltz.

He apologized to the graduates for failing to pass a liberal utopia on to the next generation and for allowing them to inherit a war.

Text

Apparently, the guy feels some personal responsibility for the dismal state of the world and he's working at rectifying it by crusading against the Bush administration.

What makes Sulzberger's personal battles so dangerous is that as he wages war against the White House, he's undercutting national security and putting all Americans at risk.

Today's edition of The Times doesn't leak any classified information.

It doesn't expose a program designed to protect the American people.

The problem with today's paper isn't the usual lies and smears designed to damage the President.

As gravely serious as the usual irresponsibility of The Times is, in some ways, what's in today's edition is even worse.

The Times exploits America's war dead and their survivors.

Just a week before the election, an emotionally charged photo essay by Doug Mills will greet readers of The Times.

Accompanying the photos, Thomas J. Lueck writes:

Burials at Arlington National Cemetery took on a grim regularity in October, when at least 103 American troops were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, the toll had reached 99 by Saturday, making October the deadliest month since January 2005.

Military officials attributed the high number of deaths to a spike in violence during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which began in late September and ended last week. They also pointed to a three-month campaign to win control of Baghdad from death squads that led to increased attacks on American troops.

But such explanations were little comfort to a 6-year-old girl weeping at the grave of her father, a mother clutching the flag from her son’s coffin, or a widow walking slowly through the rain behind her husband’s honor guard.

First, why now?

There have been deadlier months in Iraq. In the past, there have been more American fatalities in a month's time without The Times doing a pictorial on the funerals of the fallen. These photos aren't news.

Clearly, the intention is to exploit the dead and their mourners for political purposes.

It's flagrant abuse.

It's shameless.

Second, I find it disgusting that the "Muslim holy month of Ramadan" provides incentive to increase the violence.

Religion of peace?

There's something very wrong with that picture. Islamic extremists observe Ramadan by killing -- a horrible truth.

That should serve as an indication of how dangerous and truly sick our enemies are.

The point of The Times' pictorial, of course, is not to rally Americans to defeat terrorists. Instead, it attempts to use the photos to connect the sacrifice of the fallen and the pain of their loved ones with what it views as President Bush's ill-fated Iraq policy.

In effect, The Times wants you to believe that Bush is to blame. Bush is the enemy.

He's not.

Third, it's purely exploitative to picture the loved ones of the fallen in their grief.

Again, why now?

Although this October was an especially deadly month, others have died and funerals have taken place without The Times giving them front page status.

The timing of the photo essay is a sick, calculated, political move.

Unfortunately, this is not an aberration. It's not a sleazy October surprise from The Times.

The willingness to utilize any means necessary to achieve its end -- victory for the Dems -- is typical of The Times. However, that makes the tactic no less disturbing.

No compassion. No class. No shame.