Gay Patriot Header Image

Marine Sgt. John Fry – American Hero In War On Terror

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 7:21 am - March 15, 2006.
Filed under: Great Americans,War On Terror

I am vowing to highlight our real life heroes in the War on Terror as I see them. Here is one that has a sad ending, but a Sgt. Fry is a hero for our times nonetheless.

Marine dies day before return home – Waco Herald-Tribune

A Marine from Texas who was due to return home from Iraq to his wife and three children this week was killed Wednesday after he volunteered to disarm a bomb in Iraq’s war-torn Anbar province.

Gunnery Sgt. John D. Fry, 28, of Lorena, south of Waco, specialized in defusing explosive devices and planned to return to his family at Marine base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina for six months before starting another tour in Iraq in September.

“He believed in what he was doing,” Malia Fry said of her husband. “He was protecting his country, and he was doing his job because he didn’t want his children to grow up with people blowing up buildings.”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)



  1. This is sad, and it’s clear why people want this sort of thing to stop.

    Unfortunately, I think the media and far Left are sending us down the wrong path. (All hopelessness, all the time; trying either to ruin, or at least to deny and reject, the success in Iraq that people like Sgt. Fry sacrifice for and continue to carefully build up.)

    Comment by Calarato — March 15, 2006 @ 8:19 am - March 15, 2006

  2. Good post, Bruce. Thanks for keeping the focus on the heroes, not the protesting zeroes. Sgt Fry’s wife noted that he died for his fellow Marines and trying to make Iraq safe for Iraqi children. What a patriot.

    Money isn’t everything, but I wish we treated our dead soldiers’ families to compensation that equalled the generous death benefits given to the 9/11 families. Sgt Fry leaves behind three young, young kids. It’s important to remember his sacrafice –no, it’s very important.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 15, 2006 @ 8:54 am - March 15, 2006

  3. This piece comes from Black5:

    “In interviews, Fry’s family described him as selfless in his work, protecting his comrades and Iraqis from explosive devices.

    Both his wife and his mother, Beth Fry of Lorena, described an incident in which the Marine answered a call to disarm a bomb and played a game of hide-and-seek with a young Iraqi boy before sending the youngster away from the site and out of danger.

    On another occasion, Fry arrived at an Iraqi home to find a bomb strapped to a young Iraqi boy with mental retardation.

    The Marine disarmed the bomb and saved the child’s life.

    “He was so proud to be there doing what he was doing,” Beth Fry said. “Not just the war part . . . but the Marines and all the military people that are there have restored power, built schools, built hospitals, and they have running water. Those are the things that nobody talks about and that nobody hears about.”

    Where does the military find, recruit and train such heroes, patriots, servants? It’s utterly amazing in light of the anti-war flack rising out of the Democrats.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 15, 2006 @ 8:57 am - March 15, 2006

  4. On a related note, I read a memo today. I don’t have a link because it was from a subscription source, but the gist of it is, the military is clamping down on information about IED’s. Apparently, media reports on the techniques the military has been using to spot, find, and disarm IED’s was used by the enemy to develop better IED’s and thwart our efforts to detect and disarm them.

    Expect to hear more media whining about having their freedom of speech impaired. They resent not being able to help our enemy.

    Comment by V the K — March 15, 2006 @ 9:51 am - March 15, 2006

  5. Wow. A Gunny at age 28. I could be wrong, but that seems fast.

    Here’s wishing comfort and grace to his family. His wife and his mother are heroes as well, for supporting him rather than tearing him and what he believed in down.

    Comment by Synova — March 15, 2006 @ 10:46 am - March 15, 2006

  6. Isn’t that the truth, V the K? The media and the Left complain endlessly about the “secrecy” of the Bush administration. They even used Dick Cheney not immediately holding a press conference after his hunting accident as another example of the secrecy surrounding everything that happens in the Bush administration. “Reasons of national security” means nothing to these people. They claim to support the troops and want them all brought home supposedly so that no more will lose their lives, yet they cheerfully hand out what should be classified information about IEDs, thus endangering those same troops. I’m sure there are other examples.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — March 15, 2006 @ 12:57 pm - March 15, 2006

  7. Oh no, this is horribly sad. Thank you for posting and letting us know about this American hero.

    Will the MSM report his heroic actions on the evening news? In our dreams.

    Comment by wessel — March 15, 2006 @ 1:24 pm - March 15, 2006

  8. it is, the military is clamping down on information about IED’s. Apparently, media reports on the techniques the military has been using to spot, find, and disarm IED’s was used by the enemy to develop better IED’s and thwart our efforts to detect and disarm them.

    Expect to hear more media whining about having their freedom of speech impaired. They resent not being able to help our enemy

    President Bush referred to this in one of his speeches. The White House said it was in reference to an LA Times story. Here is their response:

    …The article did not provide specific information about the technology, and The Times deliberately withheld some details about the neutralizers from its report.

    “We knew about some of the technical details of the program, but voluntarily omitted them because they were not germane to the story,” Times Washington Bureau Chief Doyle McManus said.

    The Times spoke to several Defense Department officials before the article appeared. None expressed concern that publication could endanger U.S. troops.

    Even before The Times published its article, the technology was featured in several news reports. Last year, NBC News broadcast a segment about the neutralizers, showing video footage of the device detonating improvised explosives in its path.

    “We do not knowingly publish information that puts troops in danger,” McManus said. “The government often asks us not to publish sensitive facts. They made no such request in this case.”

    Before Bush mentioned the report Monday, no U.S. officials had contacted The Times to raise those concerns.

    “No one in the U.S. government came to us after the story was published to complain about it,” McManus said. “Even now, no official complaint has been made directly to us.”

    This sounds more like a White House Spin Story than an actual problem. I’m sure the Pentagon is concerned about the release of the information, but then again it looks like they are the ones who released it in the first place. They also put restrictions on milblogs BTW, but I don’t see anyone blaming the MSM for that.

    But go ahead and put your tin-foil hats on and blame it on the vast liberal media conspiracy.,1,2809143.story

    Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 15, 2006 @ 1:42 pm - March 15, 2006

  9. What, raj hasn’t popped up to call Fry an idiot and not a hero yet?

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 15, 2006 @ 2:03 pm - March 15, 2006

  10. Patrick at #8 “This sounds more like a White House Spin Story than an actual problem”.

    Only in your mind, Patrick. Since late April 2005, the WH and DoD have known that terrorists in Iraq and foreign cells have been able to take supposedly redacted PDF files, similar to the ones you’ve posted on your own little piece of the blog, and been able to recover secret, classified, and confidential information from those apparently non-threatening declassified documents.

    Good God, when are these blog pundits sitting in their synthetic tweed Barco-loungers going to realize their actions have consequences? On more than one occasion, the CIC you so often belittle has said that the terrorists are flexible, adept and wiley –it’s what pissed off so many of us with the leaks about the NSA program and the interrogation units abroad. You just don’t get it, Patrick.

    The Joint task force on anti-IED measures in DoD, working with a significant budget ($3b) and high priority mandate coming from the WH and SecyDoD, are concerned that leaking information about their activites will provide our enemies with the information needed to adapt, modify and circumvent new anti-IED measures currently under development.

    Now, it’s one thing to talk in the press about the anti-IED task force’s budget… or even whether it’s enough, fast enough, effective enough without going into specifics about those measures, but as you and any reader of MSM knows, the press and blogland pundits don’t stop there… the rush for detailed information is too great a pressure for discretion to rule with an upperhand.

    Check out Stars & Stripes about the ability and capacity of anyone –skip extending it to terrorists for now– to take declassified govt documents and recreate the classified, secret info.

    And then, look at the press reports detailing very specific information about anti-IED measures under consideration by the joint task force and individual services.

    It’s harmful, Patrick. It’s likely putting our troops at a disadvantage so that some reporter or blog pundit can snipe from the sidelines. Frankly, I think it’s aiding the enemy in a very real way –even if it’s done in dumb, blind ignorance of reality.

    Your willingness to chalk this up to another WH spin effort is intellectually dishonest, disingenious, and wrong. To remind you of the obvious: we’re in a WOT, Patrick. You aren’t helping our side win.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 15, 2006 @ 2:41 pm - March 15, 2006

  11. I know, Patrick, you’re going to come back and keep the blame-game going against DoD and in defense of the liberal press, but it’s a simple matter of fact Patrick.

    The LA Times story originally contained critical information that likely would have been helpful to terrorists and their friends (no, not the ones at KOS or the Democrat Underground –the other friends) to continue to adapt, modify and re-invent a very deadly, consequential tool aimed at soldiers just like GSgt Fry –how fitting that you’d use this thread –honoring a soldier killed by an IED and a soldier who risked his own life to save two innocent Iraqi kids lives– to try to gain some cheap partisan advantage.

    GSgt Fry’s memory deserves better from you and your ilk.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 15, 2006 @ 2:49 pm - March 15, 2006

  12. #8 – Ah, tinfoil… Not that this happens very often, but I do love it when people lazily re-use insults I had used on them, with better cause, the shortest time ago 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — March 15, 2006 @ 3:01 pm - March 15, 2006

  13. How sad this tribute has become a puerile exercise in name-calling. Sgt. Fry deserves better.

    Comment by Gene — March 15, 2006 @ 3:31 pm - March 15, 2006

  14. I think we sometimes forget just how strong the character is of our men and women in uniform, and this young man is a great example of this.

    Comment by just me — March 15, 2006 @ 3:57 pm - March 15, 2006

  15. Gene, you are absolutely correct –GSgt Fry, his family, his fellow Marines and other soldiers serving deserve better.

    Much better.

    But I think your sudden advent of patriotism and outrage ring a little hollow and insincere, if not sarcastic… kind of like the affectation of patriotism and concern SenReid or Clinton put on when taking about the safety of the troops, the success of the mission, the vital nature of winning this war and then go on to trash DoD, ground commanders, strategy, belittle our coalition partners, etc.

    It’s hollow, Gene. You asked if people commenting at GP understood the difference between patriotism and respectable dissent. For me, dissent is great in peace time but not when we are at war.

    See, I don’t think we need dissenters in time of war –if VietNam taught us anything, it should have taught us that liberal anti-war sentiments can and do undermine and cripple a Nation’s resolve to win. You all will always be against military action in the final analysis; after enough time passes for the inevitable flip-flop to occur… as it has now.

    It started with John Kerry’s open hostility during the ramp-up to the campaign… and the willingness of Sen Dems to use any issue to undercut public support. Today’s poll numbers prove that approach is STILL –long after Viet Nam– an effective political strategy for liberals.

    And guess what, Gene? It’s still wrong. Only this time the great silent majority is willing to call the dissenters out for what they are: cheap political opportunists.

    And your fake, insincere sarcastic comments reek of shallow patriotism. GSgt Fry deserves better from you, from Patrick and from other liberals who would cut the rug out from under the military in a San Francisco second.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 15, 2006 @ 4:53 pm - March 15, 2006

  16. “Your willingness to chalk this up to another WH spin effort is intellectually dishonest, disingenuous, and wrong. To remind you of the obvious: we’re in a WOT, Patrick. You aren’t helping our side win. ”

    As I have said, I’m sure that the Pentagon is concerned with the problem. I do not deny that it is a problem. So are milblogs, incidentally.

    However, the “Spin” that the White House is putting on this is misleading at best. The MSM is not guilty of treason for re-publishing information that has already been in the public domain for at least a year. And note that in the course of the article in question, there was a great deal of back-n-forth fact checking between the paper and the DOD. There was no use of “anonymous” sources. At any time the DOD could have requested that they not release certain information. They chose not to do so.

    The number one source of information on these IED programs was the Pentagon. It did not come from a reporter working for the LA Times. If the government does not want sensitive material in the hands of terrorists, then it should stop releasing the material into the public domain.

    The problem is the loose lips of the source of the information, not the MSM that reports on it. It was their mistake, not that of the LA times.

    But of course to be critical of or admit any mistakes on the part of the President’s administration is an unacceptable idea. Hence the “spin” effort by the White House to tar the MSM as being the source of the problem, rather than the lax security policy at the Pentagon.

    And do note that I am not the one who originally brought up this topic. So any attempt to accuse me of “hijacking” the thread or anything else inappropriate is also spin doctoring.

    I’m also not the one using the thread for petty insults to other posters either.

    This is my last post on this topic for this thread.

    Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 15, 2006 @ 5:03 pm - March 15, 2006

  17. #13 – Very sad. With Gryph (#8), unfortunately, there’s not a lot you can do to stop him.

    Also Gene, you may have missed past discussions where this happened, but the guy RWP refers to in #9, raj, really has called our military men idiots and not heroes. Unbelievable, I know.

    Comment by Calarato — March 15, 2006 @ 5:08 pm - March 15, 2006

  18. “I’m also not the one using the thread for petty insults to other posters either.”

    In defiance of everyone’s ability to scroll up and read #8.


    Comment by Calarato — March 15, 2006 @ 5:11 pm - March 15, 2006

  19. Calarato, Let’s just chalk it up as a “Patrick-ism”; he’s outdoing raj and hank and Mr Moderate these days.

    Patrick offers, per my prediction: “…number one source of information on these IED programs was the Pentagon”. Wrong Patrick. The number one source for information was leaked info from those within the Joint task force trying to advance their bureaucratic interests… and you know that to be true. It isn’t anything official. Why such dissembling of the truth on your part? Reporters don’t vet their stories with the Pentagon >reporters talk when they want added info or sense that a hold on a story could be a bigger story.

    Second largest source: FIOA released confidential documents obtained by LA Times reporters. To say that’s releasing info into the public domain is disingenuous, at best.

    You can skip over everything but this very very simple fact, Patrick. The release of this kind of info and the incredible details are hurting our troops, it’s hurting the mission and may lead to the deaths of other men and women of strong character and noble service like GSgt Fry.

    That simple fact, Patrick, is even beyond controvertibility in your rush to defend the liberal press organs.

    I was glad to see you removed the PDF files from your website; I hope you keep them off given what you’ve learned of late.

    And yes, you did bring this all on yourself… you could have elected not to drag all that nonsense into this thread. Or is this more of the VictimHood Card played so often by the GayLeft?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 15, 2006 @ 5:32 pm - March 15, 2006

  20. P.S. for the record, #12 is me attempting to handle Gryph’s broad insult of all readers who don’t completely agree with him (#8) in a light way, or by making a poor joke about it. But Gene is right: this thread isn’t the place for jokes, or making light of things. I apologize to Sgt. Fry and family.

    Comment by Calarato — March 15, 2006 @ 5:33 pm - March 15, 2006

  21. P.P.S. Matt, thank you for standing up for our troops’ safety.

    Comment by Calarato — March 15, 2006 @ 5:38 pm - March 15, 2006

  22. Calarato, check out Gene’s spot on the blogland… I don’t think his “concern” is exactly genuine or sincere.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 15, 2006 @ 5:39 pm - March 15, 2006

  23. Tragic story and a true American hero. God bless him and his family. That is all I care to say.

    Comment by Scott — March 15, 2006 @ 6:12 pm - March 15, 2006

  24. Without these heroes this world would be lost in rotting totalitarian decay.

    Comment by syn — March 15, 2006 @ 6:35 pm - March 15, 2006

  25. This posting is a very good idea. There’s too little of such tribute. The local newspaper buries Iraq on an inside page, and Afghanistan gets almost no mention. It’s almost as though the involvement is an afterthought.

    Comment by Gene — March 15, 2006 @ 6:51 pm - March 15, 2006

  26. #22 – I know Matt; I’ll probably be harsher with him in another thread, another time.

    Comment by Calarato — March 15, 2006 @ 7:27 pm - March 15, 2006

  27. Gene…. the newspapers don’t print it because IT IS A FAILURE! Face it!

    Comment by Sassy — March 15, 2006 @ 7:30 pm - March 15, 2006

  28. My prayers go out to his family. And yet, we have people in this country saying that they cannot support our troops.

    Comment by SouthernGayRepublican — March 15, 2006 @ 11:48 pm - March 15, 2006

  29. When members of my generation began bagging on the younger generations about a lack of patriotism, lack of committment, or just being to lazy and self-centered, men and women such as this makes it very easy to shut them down. Semper Fi.

    Comment by David — March 16, 2006 @ 12:06 am - March 16, 2006

  30. 4: Expect to hear more media whining about having their freedom of speech impaired. They resent not being able to help our enemy.

    Because we all know — or at least V the K knows — that terrorist insurgents have never infiltrated Iraqi police forces, and that they don’t hang out around US bases and encampments. Those terrorists don’t receive aid or intelligence from foreign countries, either. No, the only conceivable way they could ever hear about advances in American technology is if the American mass media talked about them.

    V’s calls for media censorship are merely a right-wing variation on the Left’s perennial “Blame America First” meme, with all its attendant solipcism.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 16, 2006 @ 3:13 am - March 16, 2006

  31. Gee, Tim, is restricting the media’s ability to pass useful information on to the enemy in time of war such a bad thing? Do you hate our troops that much?

    Comment by V the K — March 16, 2006 @ 5:27 am - March 16, 2006

  32. VdaK, Tim –like Patrick and others– feel a burning need to defend the MSM because the Liberals “own” the MSM after all.

    The parasitic relationship between the MSM and the liberal political and social agenda is so strong that NOT to defend it, not to excuse bad decisions, not to protect “the people’s right to know” even if it COULD, MIGHT, POSSIBLY lead to the death of others is trumped by the MSM’s utility to the Liberal cause.

    The real shame is that, like Patrick, Tim takes away from the focus of this thread: GSgt Fry is a hero.

    He served his country well.

    He helped innnocent children in Iraq avoid harm and death.

    His fellow soldiers are working to help Iraqis rebuild their country, schools, masques, roads, power lines and infrastructure.

    His wife and Mother honored his service and that of his comrades.

    Tim, like Patrick, seek to use his service for cheap partisan gain in the effort to smear the President, the WH, the DoD and Americans.

    Why a civilized society tolerates that kind of behavior –like allowing rogue ants to consume the eggs in the nest or tear down defenses– is so tied up with our traditions of dissent, loyal opposition, and giving even rogue actors the benefit of the doubt… it’d take forever to tweeze out the reasons.

    But you capture a part of it by asking if Tim “hates” the troops all that much to be blind to the net impact of the press’ collective indiscretion.

    Nope, Tim. The “news” source wasn’t found by reporters travelling to the battle land… nor by terrorists listening in on conversations in the tents in the Green Zone. It was secured because of the untoward and unpatriotic judgment of a few liberal press seeking to glory in the story.

    And men like GSgt Fry may have to pay the ultimate price for that indiscretion. Shame on the MSM.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 16, 2006 @ 6:34 am - March 16, 2006

  33. #32 — If one has been following the news from Iraq closely, the actual sequence of events is something like this.

    1. MSM attacks the military for being incompetent and having no strategy for dealing with IEDs.

    2. Because of this MSM-created PR problem, the military shows the media that it is, in fact, enacting strategies for dealing with IEDs

    3. The MSM does stories about these techniques, providing tactical information that is valuable to the enemy. Let’s be generous and say and most cases, the MSM was incidentally, and not deliberately, aiding the enemy.

    4. The military realizes its mistake and decides it would be best to protect counter-IED tactics from the MSM.

    5. People like Timmeh! whine about censorship. People like Gryph blame military incompetence and defend the MSM.

    So, there is a grain of truth that the military made a mistake by making this information public in the first place, but the MSM — in their zeal to smear and create PR problems for the military — should bear the brunt of the criticism.

    Comment by V the K — March 16, 2006 @ 7:08 am - March 16, 2006

  34. And note that, for these MSM liberals, the public’s overwhelming, overpowering “right to know” no matter how many deaths the publication will cause (that the MSM “isn’t responsible for”), comes to a SCREECHING HALT as soon as terrorist, i.e., Islamic, sensitivities are involved.

    Referring to the Danish Mohammed cartoon controversy, of course.

    For MSM / left-liberals, the “right to know” is a one-way street. It only applies when it will reliably cause the deaths of U.S. citizens.

    Comment by Calarato — March 16, 2006 @ 7:43 am - March 16, 2006

  35. We have a display at work with a picture of all the men and women in our city who are serving in the miltary. It’s full of pictures just like this. I hope that we never have to note that any one of “our” miltary people have died, but if we do I hope they are remembered as Sgt. Fry is remembered – honorable, brave and worthy of our admiration.

    Comment by PatrickP — March 16, 2006 @ 9:52 am - March 16, 2006

  36. V the K –HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW ABOUT THE INFORMATION WE ARE GETTING FROM IRAQ. Every article, every news report, every radio broadcast, every TV program that comes out of Iraq (including info on IEDs) MUST BE SCREENED THROUGH THE PENTAGON!!!

    Even the notorious Newsweek story out of Guantanamo (the flushing the Koran down the toilet story) was vetted through the Pentagon. In
    fact that story for 10 days on desks in the Pentagon before it was approved.

    So all the criticism you have for the MSM is actually criticism of the MSM.
    You need to do research BEFORE spewing your propaganda.
    Remember! NB: Research before propaganda. This advice will serve you well.

    Dan in Baltimore

    Dan in Baltimore

    Comment by Dan Cobb — March 16, 2006 @ 11:00 am - March 16, 2006

  37. …so all the criticism you have of the MSM is actually criticism of the U.S. military…

    Comment by Dan Cobb — March 16, 2006 @ 11:01 am - March 16, 2006

  38. You know, “mattinmichigan” there are a hell of a lot more posts of you complaining about me than my actual original posts. And most of yours are at least twice as long. And you accuse me of being disrespectful for “hijacking” the thread? And why aren’t you complaining about V the K who all the way back in #4 hijacked the thread off topic in the first place? Dude, just shut up. If you want to continue to write insulting things about me then go do it at my blog, not this one.

    Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 16, 2006 @ 12:23 pm - March 16, 2006

  39. A discussion of how IED information disclosures hurt our troops and lead to deaths isn’t off-topic, unless Bruce or Dan should say otherwise, given that Sgt. Fry apparently died of one.

    Way to take responsibility for your poor behavior, Gryph.

    Comment by Calarato — March 16, 2006 @ 12:34 pm - March 16, 2006

  40. Patrick, when you have to resort to personal attacks rather than argue the merits of public policy issues, it’s a day in which everyone loses something of consequence. But try to stay on topic. You can offer “I didn’t do it; I didn’t do it” but, the VictimHood Card only plays on the Democrat’s gameboard… it doesn’t usually work in real life.

    I can understand why you’re upset, Patrick; you’re use to spinning and expecting all to fall into lockstep behind your leadership right after the 3 gay snaps. To learn you aren’t leading and your three snaps aren’t magical, is a hard lesson in civil discourse. The simple irrefutable facts are there in my posts. I don’t have anything to add or deduct from my prior statements.

    But you’re making progress, Patrick. At least you aren’t posting controversial and ill-advised PDF files of declassified documents to your website.

    Sometimes the guys in power (oh, let’s say the President or the Secy of Defense or HS or State) do know more than armchair blog pundits and you’re willingness to accept that fact would be a big step toward your recovery and growth as a person. Honest, it would.

    BTW, it’s Michigan-Matt not mattinmichigan; I’m sure you’d like to start being accurate with facts as you start your recovery.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 16, 2006 @ 1:05 pm - March 16, 2006

  41. Thanks Calarato; you’re spot on.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 16, 2006 @ 1:09 pm - March 16, 2006

  42. 31: Gee, Tim, is restricting the media’s ability to pass useful information on to the enemy in time of war such a bad thing?

    Do you see the American public as “the enemy,” V?

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 18, 2006 @ 4:03 pm - March 18, 2006

  43. Tim, put the narrow blinders down for a second and actually try to be an American interested in protecting US lives and the troops… the well documented fact is that terrorists have been able to US media coverage to their advantage –intelligence, planning, assessments, diversionary financing strategies, and –as we now know from Saddam’s and Kofi’s Oil-4-Food Scam– they’ve even been able to USE the media to protect viable revenue streams to fund nefarious activities. It’s not a passive “we put the news out there, how it gets used is immaterial” kind of argument anymore. The terrorists are crafty, flexible, adept and they’re killing US lives. Get with the program, Tim.

    The US public –nor their access to information– is the problem; the problem is how terrorists tap into the press’ insatiable appetite for glory in the story… the problem is the lack of the press’ responsible conduct in helping to protect US lives and interests. That’s the focus; not some esoteric appreciation of the value of a free press in time of war. This isn’t VietNam. It can’t be allowed to become that –no matter how wishful your thinking might be.

    Remember Peter Arnett for CNN reporting from Baghdad during the Gulf War helping the Iraqi govt spread disinformation aimed at igniting Israeli intervention in the war? Peter was censured by Congressional leaders and the WH for his “unpatritotic” reporting –their words, not mine. Unpatriotic. And the public pressure –as well as Peter’s strange sense of decency– finally compelled CNN to drop the bozo. Unpatriotic bozo.

    And that’s what it is when the US press provides our enemies with vital information about anti-IED efforts.

    I don’t know why, Tim, you and others care to defend this kind of conduct which could lead to serious harm to our troops? Are you that short sighted? Or just anti-American?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 19, 2006 @ 12:10 pm - March 19, 2006

  44. This situation so badly calls for a M*A*S*H reference but clearly you guys will take it out of context.

    Someone mentioned settlement for servicemen. Yeah it is a bit ironic that the 9/11 payouts to some individuals most likely dwarf the wartime death benefits received by survivors. On the other hand, no one is signing up because of the death benefits. Personally, it makes me question the moral compass of the civilian casualties and their survivors of 9/11.

    On the Sgt and other casualties, why does the right autmatically claim these indiviuals as being one of theirs. I’ve known more than a few people on the left who served in the military.

    And yes protest that is good in peace is just in good in war time. If all we had were a bunch of yes men, we would clearly miss the optimal solution and not just to the war in Iraq but to just about all problems.

    Comment by ralph — March 19, 2006 @ 7:50 pm - March 19, 2006

  45. #42 — Ah, Timmeh, so the public’s “right to know” trumps the right of soldiers not to get blown up by terrorist bombs. Thanks for clarifying what your value system is.

    Comment by V the K — March 20, 2006 @ 5:46 am - March 20, 2006

  46. VdaK, we can call that the “JaneFonda-I-need-to-speak” syndrome. Timmeh is just padding the kneelers for those who seek glory-in-the-story.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 20, 2006 @ 8:59 am - March 20, 2006

  47. I am John Fry’s mother in law and I am offended that anyone would use this site to get into a political debate. However, John died so you could have the right to do so. I just wish you would go somewhere else to do it.

    Comment by Janice Davis — March 31, 2006 @ 11:09 am - March 31, 2006

  48. Hey did you see my show, So Notorious ? I was just searching the net for blogs about the thing that I love most in the world…………ME !!!!!!! Anyway, stay cool and tune in next week for more of me, your 90210 PRINCESS ! I’m on VH1 if you didn’t know.

    Comment by tori spelling — April 2, 2006 @ 8:53 pm - April 2, 2006

  49. I think the Lord brought this into my awareness that I could begin understanding this incredible sacrifice. Hopefully being on the Right (love that metaphor) allows me to post as I lack the other criteria… I learned of John, Malia, & children through the Patriot Guard riders: we put a wall between the psycho Phelps crew who disrespect fallen soldiers at their funerals (how twisted can people get?!) and the funerals…
    . After my 1/2 year stint in the army at 17, I was not very patriotic. The army I experienced pretty much disrespected their enlisted soldiers. After bootcamp, the Marines respect their troops. So I didn’t understand ‘giving one’s life for one’s country.’ Seemed to me I would have been force-fed into the situation where I’m offed.
    . But GST John David Fry lived his life in excellence: he outperformed ALL others: repeatedly, obviously through GREAT pressure and strife, he served with incredible distinction. HE DECLINED THE BRONZE STAR!!!! due to it not meeting the standard HE placed on it, a move which could cost him in his career as THAT decoration is revered.
    . He VOLUNTEERED to diffuse IED’s the very day before he was going home for 1/2 year to his family he’d missed for a 1/2 year when some miscreant murdered him.
    . No one knows the dangers of diffusing bombs like the person doing it. This guy did it on purpose: risked his life the day before freedom because it was his DUTY and he walked by HONOR (if you google him and read it screams out in his life). This was truly a person who gave his life for his country. He took the risk understanding the possible outcomes.
    . I have dwelled on this person every day for 2 weeks. He has affected me greatly. I’ve bought a 3’x5′ flag and when it arrives I’m putting it on my house. I’ve written a letter about to go to Malia, thanking her.
    . I’m not a loon, but the Lord has used John David Fry to teach me a priceless lesson and to gain understanding wrt service excellence, and therein I believe helping me become a better person.
    . John 15:13 tells us “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.”
    May God bless the Fry’s and Davis’s greatly.

    Comment by Jack Flinsbaugh — April 5, 2006 @ 12:16 am - April 5, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.