BEST OF 2002-2003
Only the right antidote can protect your life
God's love is alphabetically revealed in random languages
The Pitt News editorial, 'Troop casualties undercounted by 17,000' makes it sound like......
Ramesh C. Reddy
Any life lost is tragic whether the casualties are 1,000 or 17,000. If it is proven that it is 17,000 rather than 1000, does that make a difference regarding American troops being there?
The Pitt News editorial makes it sound like if the American people were told the 'real truth', they may ask the troops to come home! They seem to want their readers to be against the War in Iraq.
Troops went to war to protect the Iraqis among other reasons. Yes, they have been sacrificing lives. But instead of writing an editorial about lives being lost, it would have been nice to write an editorial about the difference troops in Iraq have been making.
Oh that cannot be possible because it may put the Bush administration in a good light and I have never seen the Pitt News do that! If I really believed that the Pitt News cares more for the troops than the outcome of this election, I may feel their editorial board was sincere but I donít.
However, when it comes to personalities, they have some of the nicest staff working there but nice personalities do not change ideologies.
Their source for the 17,000 number is from United Press International (UPI). This is the same agency Dan Rather worked for at one time. It is this same Rather who may soon be sadder for all those he has made madder by his reporting of forged memos
I do not give credence to UPI and neither should you. Even if 17,000 was true that should not change the fact that the troops should be supported to finish the job they went to Iraq to do. We don't need another Vietnam where America is so against the War that they stop supporting our troops.
I donít see their point of wanting the public to know how many casualties have been occurring except for the readers to give their support to Kerry.
Then again, why am I surprised because just as the Pittsburgh Standard is for Bush, the Pitt News has given me the impression that they are for Kerry! They can spin all they want but if you take a survey of their readers, they will tell them who you they are for!
When Kerry came to Pittsburgh, the Pitt News was all over it but when Bush or Cheney came to Pittsburgh, there was no coverage. Yet, the Pittsburgh Standard was able to get a photo of Bush rocking the David Lawrence Convention Center.
On a side note, I should not be shocked that the Pitt News would do an editorial on Blairís fraudulence at the NY Times but not touch the Dan Rather controversy. Blairís fraudulence did not make Bush look bad but Rather seemed to want to make Bush look bad.
Yeah, they may have token writers there who may support the Bush administration but overall their published articles have been slanted towards the left!
If you want balance in your readings, you should read the Pitt News for what I term the 'left news' and you should read us for what I term the 'right news'
Responses to article:
Keep in Mind (Sept 29,04)