All errors should be reported to

Thursday, March 26, 2015

NYT thinks you get an honorable discharge for desertion

The New York Times editors and reporters are not just liberal.

They're stupid.

They are not merely ignorant, as ignorance can be easily cured. You simply inform the poor soul of the facts.

There is no cure for stupid, which is a condition that seems impervious to correct information.

The Army charged Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl with “misbehavior before the enemy” and desertion. Helene Cooper (a native of Liberia with a journalism degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who covers the Pentagon) and Richard A. Oppel, Jr. (Duke University graduate) originally wrote for the the New York Times: “Another question is whether the Army will give Sergeant Bergdahl an honorable discharge if he is found guilty of desertion, For members of the military, an honorable discharge is no small matter, and not getting one can hinder not only a veteran’s job prospects, but the entirety of how a service memberlook [sic] back on his or her career.”

Only after the Daily Caller pointed out the mistake (likely tipped by Weasel Zippers acting on a tip from John Podhoretz) did the New York Times excise the egregious paragraph.

We all make mistakes, but surely UNC and Duke graduates should by the time they are in their 40s should know what the word "honorable" means.

This begs the question: Why did no one on the copy desk know what "honorable" means?

Here is a thought: Hire a military veteran or two to help stop such a fustercluck from happening again.


  1. The New York Times finds nothing dishonorable about desertion, even desertion in the face of the enemy.

  2. Or about lying, which they do daily, and is why I have only contempt for them (and bad thoughts and words).