Leave it to The New York Times editorial board to take its slobbering love for Obama to shameful new lows.
In a recent op-ed, the board breathlessly rushed to defend the Obama administration from criticism over the Bergdahl fiasco — by blaming his army unit, in part, for Berdgahl’s alleged desertion.
ISYN, NYTimes editorial attacks Bergdahl's unit for "lack of security and discipline" in letting Bergdahl desert. http://t.co/bBP8qzI7DH
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) June 6, 2014
Read it and seethe:
This duck-and-cover response is the result of the outrageous demonization of Sergeant Bergdahl in the absence of actual facts. Republican operatives have arranged for soldiers in his unit to tell reporters that he was a deserter who cost the lives of several soldiers searching for him. In fact, a review of casualty reports by Charlie Savage and Andrew Lehren of The Times showed there is no clear link between any military deaths and the search. [Note: Michelle Malkin’s detailed account of the fallout from Bergdahl’s departure would beg to differ.]
And a classified military report shows that Sergeant Bergdahl had walked away from assigned areas at least twice before and had returned, according to a report in The Times on Thursday. It describes him as a free-spirited young man who asked many questions but gave no indication of being a deserter, let alone the turncoat that Mr. Obama’s opponents are now trying to create.
If anything, the report suggests that the army unit’s lack of security and discipline was as much to blame for the disappearance, given the sergeant’s history. [Emphasis ours.]
Recommended
Outrageous.
F*ck the NYT editorial board. "If anything, the report suggests that the army unit’s lack of security and discipline" http://t.co/ODFvMVLYs4
— Melissa Mackenzie (@MelissaTweets) June 6, 2014
Blogger Melissa Clouthier channeled her righteous anger into giving the NYT the shaming it so richly deserves:
Have you met a soldier who isn't morally complex? Who doesn't understand human nature? Who doesn't know tough choices?
— Melissa Mackenzie (@MelissaTweets) June 6, 2014
That's what a man who serves does: He see the worst–in others, in himself–and he soldiers on a changed man.
— Melissa Mackenzie (@MelissaTweets) June 6, 2014
But a serving man digs down and does the right thing ANYWAY. And he takes this road by CHOICE.
— Melissa Mackenzie (@MelissaTweets) June 6, 2014
That the New York Times editorializes about the men who served with Bergdahl makes me sick. And on the anniversary of D Day?
— Melissa Mackenzie (@MelissaTweets) June 6, 2014
Bergdahl's actions are offensive because he betrayed his brothers. His actions fly in the face of the courage of men who served with him.
— Melissa Mackenzie (@MelissaTweets) June 6, 2014
And the New York Times is Team Bergdahl and questioning the men who put their lives on the line to find this weak (at best) man? Disgusting.
— Melissa Mackenzie (@MelissaTweets) June 6, 2014
These media elites just make me sick. Always on the side of the craven and evil. Infuriating.
— Melissa Mackenzie (@MelissaTweets) June 6, 2014
They’re vile. And to anyone who believes the NYT has the faintest clue what it’s talking about, consider this:
Who do you believe? The NYT editorial board or these guys? http://t.co/F5cBje5ly7
— Melissa Mackenzie (@MelissaTweets) June 6, 2014
Join the conversation as a VIP Member