If you would like to add a comment to any of the threads here on AADB, registration with blogspot.com is not required. Simply click on the ‘comments’ link at the bottom of an essay, and either enter a nickname under ‘choose an identity’ or post your comment anonymously. Serious comments are always welcome.

REQUIEM

Below are the two final essays to be posted on Allegiance and Duty Betrayed. The first one is written by a friend -- screen name 'Euro-American Scum' -- who, over the past four years, has been the most faithful essayist here. He has written about everything from his pilgrimage to Normandy in 2004 to take part in the 60th–year commemoration of the invasion, to his memories of his tour in Vietnam. His dedication to America’s founding principles ... and those who have sacrificed to preserve them over the past 200+ years ... is unequaled. Thank you, E-A-S. It has been a privilege to include your writing here, and it is a privilege to call you my friend.

The second essay is my own farewell. And with it I thank all of the many regular visitors, and those who may have only dropped in occasionally, for coming here. I hope you learned something. I hope a seed or two was planted. But, even if not, I thank you for stopping by ... 25 March, 2010

9/09/2007

Traitors in our Midst

Warning to Traitors.jpg

Rick and I discovered this morning that yet another young man whom we know well has volunteered to be deployed to Iraq. He will be leaving in January. Which spurred me to do some serious thinking on the subject of our young men volunteering …

My support for the war effort in Iraq has dwindled, for two sad reasons:

(1) Our president told us four years ago that America has to battle the terrorists in the Middle East in order to prevent the need to battle them here on our own soil.

So we are sending our troops six thousand-plus miles from our shores into a region surrounded by a vast sea of enemy sympathizers in order to fight a ruthless adversary, whose supply lines are easily replenished, and who wages war under rules that defy comprehension by the civilized world.

Yet, at the same time, we are leaving our own two-thousand-mile border virtually unsecured, so that those very same barbarians may enter our own country at will, circulating among us, and devising all manner of mass brutality that may eventually make the bloodshed on the battlefield in Iraq seem a comparative walk in the park.

It would appear that our president is intent on facing down the enemy half a world away, while at the same time issuing them an open invitation to walk, unhindered and undocumented, across our unprotected border, and

(2) I believe that we are fighting this war with one hand tied behind our backs. Men and materiel are streaming across the borders of Iran and Syria, and our attention is consistently diverted from addressing that critical situation – a diversion that costs the lives of both our courageous fighting men, and innocent Iraqis, every day.

With all of that said, I respect beyond words those duty-bound, patriotic Americans who see it as their calling to do their part in creating an island of democracy in a sea of Muslim tyranny, and attempting to keep the terrorists contained and off of American shores. They are truly modern American heroes, standing in the cross hairs so that you and I might go on with ‘life and usual.’

Because of the above considerations, I suppose I might be considered a member of the anti-war contingent. But, no matter my thoughts on the prosecution of this war, never would I consider entertaining a negative thought regarding the successes our military has achieved. And never ever would I consider voicing such a thought, in public or in private. To my mind, depending on the tenor of such a voiced opinion, that opinion would be tantamount to undermining our troops, at best, and treason and betrayal of allegiance and duty, at worst.

I ask the readers here to consider the following statement made recently by the infamous senior senator from New York, Chuck Schumer. Then ask yourself whether this man should be allowed to continue to occupy a seat in the American senate. I’ll comment no more, and leave the matter for you all to decide:

The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al-Qa’ida said to these tribes, ‘We have to fight al-Qa’ida ourselves.’ It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here ... Senator Chuck al-Schumer, last week in an interview

I ask you, which of the following should be considered an American patriot, and which should be the object of criticism and scorn? Which possesses the moral high ground? Which is the embodiment of the America in which you take pride?

Iraq soldier.jpg

Schumer.jpg

We're living in a Lewis Carroll world, where up is down, black is white, and criminals hold positions of power over heroes ... and have the arrogance and audacity to denigrate their heroism.

~ joanie

69 comments:

Anonymous said...

All too sadly true, and Schumer and the other Senator from NY are BOTH traitors.

Anonymous said...

Schumer is a bastard and a traitor. A hundred years ago he would have been hung.

Al said...

Kucinich: The U.S. Must Pay Reparations to the People of Iraq

http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1550.htm

from an interview with U.S. Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, which aired on Syrian TV on September 3, 2007.

daveburkett said...

I agree with your "anti-war" comments, Joanie, but I wouldn't put you in the anti-war camp. You're just a loyal American who wants the war fought right and who wants to protect us from invaders over our own borders. Excellent commentary.

marcus aurelius said...

Very well said as always.

robmaroni said...

Joanie, your two reservations about the war are mine, too. People talk about this being another Vietnam, but we didn't have the border issue back in the 60's. This will be much more devasatating if we keep fighting this war half-heartedly and if we don't close our borders. The 2008 election will either work toward correcting our nearsightedness or spell our doom.

john galt said...

Joshua Chamberlain was a "liberal" when that was an honorable thing to be. His beliefs have been hijacked by opportunists.

Great quote.

smithy said...

Schumer has since "deleted" that remark from his speech. I wonder why. Bastard!

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/chuck-schumer-declares-military-surge-a-failure

Proudpodunknative said...

Copied from another web site, because it bears repeating:

This is, of course, a pre-emptive strike against the report soon to be released by General Petraeus. They [the loony demo-commies] have been fearful that the recent surge in Iraq is actually working and are going out of their way to spin any good news coming from Iraq. They are even calling it the 'Bush' report in a shameful way to discredit the very General they placed in charge. And wasn't the demo-dopes who insisted we listen to the Generals????

So why are they doing this? They want the US to be defeated. Even in a victory they will claim defeat. They have invested in the military defeat in Iraq so heavily that any good news for the US and Iraq would be bad news for their party and there is no turning back for them. They have no choice but to lie and continue betraying our soldiers and our country in favor of a defeat from a most determined enemy. They are the most despicable of traitors, they value their own political power over the security of the US and will do ANYTHING to enhance their own selfish ambitions, including selling out their own country.

It's time to bring back public lynchings and line up half the dems in Congress for a swing on the gallows. It would make a great Pay per View special.

Anonymous said...

Well said C.W.

LouBarakos said...

Schumer and all the other quislings are already scheming about how to take over Craig's seat, as if they hold the moral high ground.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/schumer-dems-can-win-craigs-seat-2007-09-01.html

SharonGold said...

Kucinich: The U.S. Must Pay Reparations to the People of Iraq

Al, I believe the Kucinich quote is even more despicable than the Schumer quote, and that level of "despicable" is hard to accomplish.

Anonymous said...

Look closely:

http://i7.tinypic.com/4m7hus2.jpg

Anonymous said...

Schumer got 71% of the vote in 2004. That says a lot about New York.

johnsteever said...

Joe Biden made some similar comments to Schumer's recently but I can't seem to find them. I just remember having the same reaction to Biden's military critical remarks as I did reading Schumer's. Treason seems to be contagious.

Anonymous said...

Bush ought to treat the treasonous dems in the same way Lincoln treated the copperheads, but Bush doesn't have the cojones.

Al said...

Sharon,

Don't worry. The UN will take care of everything:

UN Human Rights Chief Takes Front Row Seat To Hear Ahmadinejad In Tehran (21 Executed The Next Day)
Eye on the UN--September 08, 2007 By Anne Bayefsky

http://www.eyeontheun.org/editor.asp?p=383&b=1

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, traveled to Iran this week to take a front row seat and listen attentively to Holocaust-denier Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The occasion was billed as a human rights meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), currently chaired by Cuba.

While Arbour was hobnobbing with anti-semites, butchers and anti-democratic forces from around the world, Iranians were being prepared for public hangings.

Arbour was reported by the Islamic Republic News Agency as having "expressed pleasure with being at the NAM meeting and described Iran's representation office in the UN in Geneva as "very good." In an unusual move, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has so far neglected to put her official statement on their website.

The day after Arbour left Iran the government felt sufficiently buoyed by their UN stamp of approval, that they executed 21 prisoners. People are executed in Iran for charges like "enmity against God" or "being corrupt on earth."
Iran need not worry about the UN reaction after-the-fact either. Arbour is quoted by Iranian news sources as telling participants: "The new method of considering issues related to human rights is comprehensive and not selective and the UN Human Rights Council is ready to present technical and consultation assistance to Iran." "Non-selective" is UN code for refusing to name states that violate human rights, let alone taking action to stop them. "Technical assistance" is UN code for helping the state avoid criticism by pretending the problem is some kind of infrastructure glitch. It has been clear for some time that the new UN Human Rights Council is bent on eliminating all country-specific criticism, (not directed at Israel of course). Now, apparently, Arbour agrees.

Just what was Arbour listening to so closely inside those Tehran meeting halls anyway? Ahmadinejad delivered his signature statement about the illegitimacy of Israel's existence, ranting about "the Zionist regime's occupation" since the day it was created "60 years ago." He then went on to blame the US for a litany of evils. Referring to the US, Iranian news agencies report that his speech included: "They know quite well that the Islamic Revolution wants to prepare the ground for materialization of the promised `big event' (reappearance of the Imam of Age);...We are against rule of the non-righteous individuals....[R]evolutionary Iran aims at global government and a genuine Islamic culture so as to gain a loftier position worldwide."

snip

The [Iranian] Resistance Council warned "The political prisoners and their families fear that if their plight is not addressed by the UN human rights chief on her visit to Tehran, the criminal mullahs will take it as a green light to continue with their barbarism and executions...[They will] take advantage of Arbour's trip...to increase torture and executions in Iran.." With the mass executions immediately following her departure, their worst fears have been realized.

The disservice that has been done by High Commissioner Arbour's trip to Tehran is enormous.

Lori_Gmeiner said...

It would appear that our president is intent on facing down the enemy half a world away, while at the same time issuing them an open invitation to walk, unhindered and undocumented, across our unprotected border.

The biggest travesty of his tragic presidency.

kathymlynczak said...

Joanie, I LOVE your photo of the soldier and your closing sentence, "We're living in a Lewis Carroll world, where up is down, black is white, and the criminals have the arrogance and audacity to sit in judgment of the heroes."

God bless you!

danthemangottschall said...

"We're living in a Lewis Carroll world, where up is down, black is white, and criminals hold positions of power over heroes ... and have the arrogance and audacity to denigrate their heroism."

Well said!

Anonymous said...

You shouldn't have posted the picture of Schumer without warning us first. Now I have spit all over my computer screen.

John Cooper said...

I actually wrote my new U.S. Rep. Heath Schuler [D-NC11] and called him a coward and a traitor over his "non-binding" vote to cut off funds for the war.

Guess I won't be getting a Christmas Card from him this year.

John Cooper said...

Speaking of cowards and traitors, recall that back in 1973, the democrats in congress passed - and President Nixon signed - a supplemental appropriations act which cut off all funds for American military assistance to Indochina.

After that, the fall came swiftly. Cambodia succumbed first. As the Khmer Rouge closed in on the capital city of Phnom Penh in early April 1975, the United States offered a number of Cambodian officials a chance to escape. The following is a reply addressed to the U.S. ambassador by Sirik Matak, a former Cambodian prime minister

"Dear Excellency and Friend:

"I thank you very sincerely for your letter and for your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you, and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it.

"You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But, mark it well, that if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is no matter, because we are all born and must die. I have only committed this mistake of believing in you [the Americans]."

"Please accept, Excellency and dear friend, my faithful and friendly sentiments."

Immediately after the Khmer Rouge took Phnom Penh, Sirik Matak was shot in the stomach and left to die over the course of three days from his untreated wounds.

Anonymous said...

How does some one who was a total failure as a quarterback become a US congressman?

Apparently it is easier to win at one rather than the other.

robmaroni said...

Cooper, the letter your copied is a gem. If the democrats have their way, it could be copied and sent to Washington today. And knowing what happened to the writer brought a real lump in the throat. Thank you for the post.

Al said...

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio) said Spanish should become a second national language.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/09/AR2007090902033_pf.html

Ferdie said...

John,

Some other examples:

Jimmy Carter's betrayal of Taiwan

The first President Bush's betrayal of the Kurds---telling them the US would support them at the end of the first Gulf War--and then standing by and letting them get slaughtered by Sadam Insane when they moved forward

The US and Britain's [Churchill's] betrayal of Yugoslavian general Draza Milhalovitch, delivering Yugoslavia into the hands of the communists and Tito

The US betrayal of the Hungarians in 1956 (broadcasts by Radio Free Europe had led them to believe that the United States would come to their aid)

Sandra said...

An Aside:

Jane Wyman, Ronald Reagan’s first wife, dies:

After Reagan became governor of California and then president of the United States, Wyman kept a decorous silence about her ex-husband, who had married actress Nancy Davis. In a 1968 newspaper interview, Wyman explained the reason:

"It's not because I'm bitter or because I don't agree with him politically. I've always been a registered Republican. But it's bad taste to talk about ex-husbands and ex-wives, that's all. Also, I don't know a damn thing about politics."

A few days after Reagan died on June 5, 2004, Wyman broke her silence, saying: "America has lost a great president and a great, kind and gentle man."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070910/ap_on_en_mo/obit_wyman

Al said...

CHUCK SCHUMER CHANGES WHAT HE SAID

http://www.canticle4leibowitz.com/
[edited]

Monday, September 10, 2007
The Two Faces of Chuck Schumer
A week ago, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), insulted the U. S. Marines who have fought and died to make Anbar Province a showcase of the road to victory and relative peace in Iraq.

Schumer said

Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al-Qaeda said to these tribes, "We have to fight al-Qaeda ourselves."

Now, a week later, Schumer has re-written what he said.

According to the official statement from his office, what Senator Schumer actually said was:

And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The lack of protection for these tribes from al Qaeda made it clear to these tribes, “We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves.” It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there protecting them.

cw-patriot said...

John,

Your Sirik Matak letter brought major tears -- because of the personal tragedy that befell the man as a result of America's indifference (at best), and because it serves as an uncomfortable, eerie echo from the past. And 'Ferdie's' additional examples of our betrayals of millions, that preceded and post-dated our Indochina betrayal, are equally difficult to comprehend, let alone justify.

The leftists among us would have us repeat the abomination that we committed in Indochina.

That betrayal, thirty-plus years ago, was costly in terms of millions of innocent lives that had looked to America for help. The current betrayal-in-progress will result in the same kind of brutal blood bath, and will also dramatically increase our own vulnerability here at home.

But what the heck. To the leftists among us, the potential price, in terms of lives and liberties, will be worth it. A democrat will win the White House in 2008, and the one-world/socialist steam roller will gain unprecedented speed. Treason was never more grotesque than in America 2007.

Thank you for the moving, telling reminder. Those who refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it. And when the potentially millions of victims of our 'learning disability' depended on our commitment and the value of our word, the tragedy is magnified beyond comprehension.

The fact that there will be a Judgment Day becomes increasingly important to those who can no longer abide or comprehend the evil of which man is capable.

~ joanie

cw-patriot said...

CHUCK SCHUMER CHANGES WHAT HE SAID.

Hey, that's what happens when you possess no personal moral compass and you've neglected to consult your handlers. Extemporaneous speech becomes very dangerous, and subject to poll-driven revisions.

Contemptible.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the excellent essay and excellent responses.

smithy said...

Proudpodunknative, that's a great piece of hard-hitting writing!

Luis said...

Joanie,

I agree with all that you write here. Sad but true.

There is still a case for war though but not as you say with troops having one hand tied behind their back and not doing anything about the well known supply lines from the enemy. I guess that is why the Brits are packing up in Basra because they're allowed to do little except get shot at.

This has all changed a lot in 6 years of this story but the enemies remain out there. However there is no point in loosing troops just for the sake of "having a presence".

I am afraid I am proposing no answers here at this stage but just agreeing that this is a sad and difficult situation

calbrindisi said...

It looks like Schumer has lots of company:

U.S. Democratic Hopeful Meets Assad, Blasts Bush:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188392553023&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Al said...

Others for John's collection:

The betrayal of the (Orthodox Christian) Armenians as the US sat by and allowed the (muslim) Turks to slaughter them pre and during WW I. (even though Woodrow Wilson was well aware of the situation)

The betrayal of the Orthodox Christian Serbs by Clinton and the US in handing Kosovo over to the muslim Albanians who don't belong there (a carry over of the WWII betrayal of Yugoslavia mentioned above).

Al said...

There is a connection in all this.

The purpose is to wipe out Christianity.

Does anyone disagree that that is the purpose of the ACLU, the left in the US and Europe, the muslims (allowed to run wild by the West), the US media, US academia, Hollywood, TV, the slaughters of the Armenians, the smashing of Yugoslavia, the infiltration and takeover of the National Council of Churches, etc., the muslim takeover of Europe (well on its way), and what else?

John Cooper said...

Anonymous said... How does some one who was a total failure as a quarterback become a US congressman?

I assume you are speaking of Heath Schuler. The answer is simple: His Republican opponent was a long-time RINO - one of the "country club" republicans who have pretty much destroyed the republican party.

There's a lesson here for republican candidates, but not many have learned it.

Anonymous said...

Sandra, Thanks for showing that some people have more class and common sense than modern day actors and actresses:
___________________________________

After Reagan became governor of California and then president of the United States, Wyman kept a decorous silence about her ex-husband, who had married actress Nancy Davis. In a 1968 newspaper interview, Wyman explained the reason:

"It's not because I'm bitter or because I don't agree with him politically. I've always been a registered Republican. But it's bad taste to talk about ex-husbands and ex-wives, that's all. Also, I don't know a damn thing about politics."

A few days after Reagan died on June 5, 2004, Wyman broke her silence, saying: "America has lost a great president and a great, kind and gentle man."
.

Anonymous said...

There's more information and grounded opinion in this column and list of comments than in any single issue of the NY Times.

Algernon said...

PLEASE

Remove that picture of Chuckie Schumer.

Is he acknowledging applause in the men's room at MoveOn.org in San Francisco?

John Cooper said...

robmaroni...

The letter I posted was from Commentary Magazine, Was Kissinger Right? by Gabriel Shoenfeld (it's in .pdf).

(We can be thankful that we no longer have to depend on the lamestream media for our recollection of history.)

tet68 said...

HI JOANIE!!

Excellent post.

Such a simple thing, secure borders.Why the obfuscation
and obstructionism to such a concept?

One would have thought that either party would have seen the will of the people reflected in their yearning for secure national borders. Almost beyond belief that the republicans didn’t pick up on this, oh a few, Tancredo and some others you could count on one hand, it is a bad decision that will come back to haunt us when the attacks start to happen, as they will soon. I say that because I see the timeline of conflict spiraling ever tighter. The Syrian/Israeli situation teeters on the brink, Iran is actively crossing into Iraq and supplying and training those who are trying to stop the unification of Iraq and yet we seem to do nothing to stop them. I say seem because you and I both know that there is much that occurs which we know nothing about. In the Iraqi theater massive interdiction should be taking place on the Syrian and Iranian edges of the country to stop the flow of supplies/ munitions/ jihadis. If a few errant bombs fall on Iranian/Syrian training camps, well we can deny or apologize with the best of countries.

It’s my personal belief that President Bush is not going to leave the Iranian problem as it exists now to another president.

Anti-American Americans have been with us since the founding of the republic, James Fenamore Cooper remarked on them during his time, they are proof of the tolerant nature of our form of government, UNTIL they become successful at which time all pretense of tolerance will disappear, sad to say, and with it our form of governance.

As we Marines say, I’m a lover not a fighter, but there is a time to fight, and a way to fight and as far as I an tell we aren’t doing it. Perhaps the Islamic fanatics will make the mistake of hitting us harder the next time, I dread seeing it happen but perhaps it will open the eyes of the nation as to the conflict we face.

I suspect they learned a rather shocking lesson from 9-11, we took down the governments of TWO countries, if they hit us again what can they expect?

Rather I think Iraq is the battlefield because a free Iraq
stands in the way of a world Caliphate, the dream of all Islamics.

Just my two cents but it’s going to start unraveling between Syria and Israel, between the Kurds and Iran, it isn’t going to take much, perhaps the assassination of some obscure archduke...

Isn’t is sad that had the liberals arrayed themselves with the nation as a whole, this whole Iraq thing would have been settled a year or two ago and gas prices would be down around a buck and a half.

Ah well.

Your FRiend.
Tet68.

robmaroni said...

Well said, tet!

Anonymous said...

As we Marines say, I’m a lover not a fighter, but there is a time to fight, and a way to fight and as far as I an tell we aren’t doing it. Perhaps the Islamic fanatics will make the mistake of hitting us harder the next time, I dread seeing it happen but perhaps it will open the eyes of the nation as to the conflict we face.

To which I say a sad 'Amen,' Tet68.

Anonymous said...

Sandra, it says a lot when the wife of a "celebrity" keeps quiet after he remarries and gains even higher office. It says a lot about her, and a lot about him. Thanks for posting that article. "Class" is no longer what we look for in our heroes, but some of them still have it anyway.

Al said...

"Isn’t is sad that had the liberals arrayed themselves with the nation as a whole, this whole Iraq thing would have been settled a year or two ago and gas prices would be down around a buck and a half."

The liberals' (commies, progressives, socialists, Democrats) purpose is to destroy the US,

so it is very unlikely that they would ever "array" themselves with anything in the interests of the US.

They do the exact opposite.

They have 'arrayed' themselves with the muslims--for example :

The NY TIMES continuous propaganda that poor muslim terrorists are 'mistreated'

The NY TIMES repeatedly undermining and betraying the US attempts to counter muslim terrorism in the US

The ACLU pushing suits against anyone who breathes in the direction of US muslims and their terrorist-connected US muslim organizations

The media attacks on those who dare to mention that muslim terrorism is not a good thing

The city of New York sponsoring a tax-payer funded muslim madrassa public school

The leftwing US academia using tax-payers money to fund 'footbaths' for muslim "students"
while attacking Christianity at every opportunity

The blacking out of any positive news from Iraq and Afganistan

The 'liberals' hate the US with a passion.

They hate you and me if we stand in the way of their annihilation of the US.

LouBarakos said...

The purpose is to wipe out Christianity.

Al, you're good at hitting the nail on the head.

Al said...

loubarakos,

"Ouch."

Ferdie said...

Anonymous said...
There's more information and grounded opinion in this column and list of comments than in any single issue of the NY Times.


That is NOT a compliment.

Lori_Gmeiner said...

You make a valid point, Ferdie. ;)

Algernon said...

GUESS WHO ? Reuters had write their news report on General Prateus' appearance before Congress today.

Arshad Mohammed. That's who.

Petraeus hearing starts with Democratic criticism
Mon Sep 10, 2007

By Arshad Mohammed

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2007-09-10T171133Z_01_L02535730_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ.xml&src=rss&rpc=22&sp=true

jim said...

Algernon,

That's called "fair and balanced" in the news media.

An American patriot testified about the war progress, so a possible terrorist sympathizer did the reporting on his testimony. It doesn't get any more "fair and balanced" than that.

(/sarc)

Sandra said...

.

9-11

This is Bill Clinton's Presidential Legacy.

Negligence and Malfeasance,

especially the Gorelick Wall,

let it happen.

NEVER FORGET.

.

Anonymous said...

Here is a winner from a leftwing website:

The Democrats need to replace Pelosi in the house with Maxine Waters and Reid in the Senate with Chuck Schumer.

Algernon said...

BBC Tells Kids U.S. Brought 9/11 on Itself

By John Stephenson | September 11, 2007 –

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_1610000/newsid_1612600/1612653.stm

The BBC decided to set up a website explaining 911 to kids, to help the kids understand the war on terror the BBC way. In one section they ask, Why Did They Do It? Guess who gets the blame?

Here is the BBC explanation:

The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda - who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks.
In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war - called a jihad - against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do.
When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave.


It is the U.S. fault! Not a single word condemning Al Qeada in the whole thing. Keep in mind this is aimed towards children.

—John Stephenson is editor of Stop The ACLU.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2007/09/11/bbc-teaches-children-about-911-attacks

Algernon said...

BBC Site for Kids explains it all for the kiddies:

What is al-Qaeda?

Al-Qaeda has been accused of being behind a series of attacks and bombings since its formation in the late 1980s.

Because of this, it is classed as a terrorist organisation by the UK government.

Members are followers of Islam but they have very extreme beliefs that are different from those of many Muslims.

They believe they are fighting a holy war (jihad) against enemies of their religion.

Al-Qaeda hopes its attacks will make Western countries treat Muslims differently in areas like the Middle East, the Balkans and Chechnya .

People have joined the group from many countries including Britain.

They operate internationally but are thought to be strongest in Arab countries.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_2520000/newsid_2529200/2529243.stm

Luis said...

outrageous propoganda aimed at children by the BBC. As a British tax payer who helps fund the BBC I am disgusted (although not entirely surprised). Thanks for bringing it to our attention...

John Cooper said...

Tet68...

Like you, I *hope* that the U.S. or our allies have been actively doing something about Iran and Syria out of the public eye. Here's some evidence of that:

"The Israel Air Force jets that allegedly infiltrated Syrian airspace early last Thursday apparently bombed an Iranian arms shipment that was being transferred to Hizbullah, CNN reported Tuesday."

John Cooper said...

Lest we forget: Tilly's Story courtesy of LGF.

cw-patriot said...

Luis, I always appreciate your comments from 'across the pond' and am especially touched by this one:

I guess that is why the Brits are packing up in Basra because they're allowed to do little except get shot at.

This has all changed a lot in 6 years of this story but the enemies remain out there. However there is no point in loosing troops just for the sake of "having a presence".


So sad, and yet so true.

~ joanie

Anonymous said...

The Silence of Guilt
By Rich Carroll

http://www.focalpointusa.org/thesilenceofguilt.html

Sometime during the evening hours of September 8th, 2007, the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall in Washington, D.C. was defaced
with a petroleum based acid liquid.

The liberal media barely
mentioned this outrageous vandalism. Most avoided the news
completely.
Not one Senator or Congressman has stood-up and
demanded better security for the memory of these 58,249 killed
during the Democrat war in Vietnam.

Could it be guilt over their
deaths, or guilt that a left-wing Democrat group organized this
despicable act at yet another time in history when Democrats
consider United States Military personnel little more than "Nazi storm troopers"? (quote Dick Durbin, Illinois).

Could the silence of the left
be their thunderous acceptance of further degrading our fine
military personnel?

Anonymous said...

No Democratic Censure For MoveOn Ad

The Washington Times
By Sean Lengell September 12, 2007

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070912/NATION/109120086/1002

Democratic congressional leaders and the party's presidential candidates yesterday refused to repudiate a liberal group's ad questioning Gen. David H. Petraeus' character.

Capitol Hill Democrats rejected a call for votes in both chambers to condemn the attack newspaper ad, run by MoveOn.org, saying Republicans are trying to take attention off what they call the president's failed Iraq policy.

Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the California Democrat "wished [MoveOn.org] wouldn't have done that ad," but declined to comment further.

A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, also declined to comment on the ad.

The MoveOn.org ad which ran in the New York Times on Monday features a photo of the general, who is giving testimony on Iraq to Congress this week, and the headline "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

Republicans had hoped to force Democrats into the uncomfortable position of voting for a measure to officially denounce an organization that has helped raise millions for party candidates in recent elections.

"This smear campaign consisted of entirely unwarranted and fallacious attacks, and sought to impugn the name of a highly respected man of integrity," said Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican.

Mr. Cornyn introduced the Senate resolution yesterday condemning the attacks that was rejected by Democrats.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, called on senators to "go on record in opposition to this outrageous ... and unacceptable ad."

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, introduced a similar measure Monday. But Democratic leaders say they won't allow a vote on the nonbinding resolution.

MoveOn.org is a leader in the antiwar movement and has helped force the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates to shift toward their position. The group has also directly aided some of the candidates, running ads on their behalf.

A spokesman for former Sen. John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate who has benefited from full-page ads MoveOn.org ran on his behalf, said Mr. Edwards "honors General Petraeus' service and patriotism," but he did not disavow the MoveOn.org ad.

"The general is wrong to believe that the American people or Congress should give President Bush's failed Iraq strategy more time," said Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz.

In July, MoveOn.org ran newspaper ads for Mr. Edwards in Iowa and New Hampshire after their members chose him as the winner of an online forum about global warming.

Sen. Barack Obama's spokeswoman Jen Psaki noted that the candidate is not questioning the general's patriotism but rather his "logic," because the Illinois Democrat sees "no evidence that this surge is producing the political progress needed to resolve the civil war in Iraq, or that it will be accomplished through more of the same."

After Mr. Obama won an online MoveOn.org forum about Iraq, the group set up a page directing its members to make direct financial contributions to whichever candidate they felt gave the strongest performance.

Phil Singer, a spokesman for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, said his boss would "keep her focus where it should be, on ending the war."

John Cooper said...

The New York Times gave moveon.org a 61% discount for their full page ad, too.

Al said...

http://blackflag.files.wordpress.com/2006/06/zarqawi_toe_tag.jpg

Al said...

MoveOn.org Gets MASSIVE Discount Rate from NY TIMES for 'Betray Us' Advocacy Ad

NewsBusters September 11, 2007 Terry Trippany

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippany/2007/09/11/moveon-org-gets-discount-rate-betray-us-advocacy-ad

Jake Tapper at ABC News reported that MoveOn.org paid $65,000 for its full page anti-war advocacy sliming of General David Petraeus. This figure raised the suspicions of attentive blogger Confederate Yankee whose intuition appears to be correct. While looking up the current New York Times rate book he discovered that MoveOn.org received a $102,000 discount on the standard political advocacy rate that is advertised at $167,157.

For a newspaper that pretends to be objective purveyors of news this discount seems a bit steep for the deep pocketed liberal advocacy group. In fact the amount MoveOn paid is less than any rate listed in the New York Times schedule.

There’s not much to say about the character of the New York Times that hasn’t been said already. For a paper that has been paying its investors back with lead weighted returns I’d be a little irritated if I had a stake in a venture that puts the subjective political agenda of the editorial staff above the fiduciary duty of the corporation to its investors. Especially considering that MoveOn.org could easily afford the going rate and likely would have run the ad without such a lavish discount. But then again advocacy as a business plan is exactly what the newspaper is about.

When trying to explain how the New York Times Co. managed to shave 50% off the bottom line between 2002 and 2006 some analysts felt that editorial content was not the problem. They looked at other indicators such as poor cost control.

They were wrong in my eyes. The arrogance of the people running the New York Times Co. is a reflection of the paper and its approach to journalism. I’d consider this an example of how editorial persuasion reflects much of the back room operations at the newspaper if not the company as a whole.

Yesterday the New York Times Co. reached a simultaneous low while its crown jewel newspaper reached a new low by running a personal attack ad against a war hero. Their stock reflected their standing in the world of character by ending the day with a five year low of $20.72. What a perfectly deserving reflection of the quality of the product coming out of the nation’s biggest clearing house for advocacy journalism.

Terry Trippany is the editor at Webloggin

John Cooper said...

Complaint filed with FEC over Betray Us ad

Office of General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20463

Dear Folks,

Sept. 10, 2007 the political advocacy group MoveOn.org ran an ad in the NY Times with the headline, Gen. Petraeus or Gen. Betray Us.

This ad also says "Cooking the books for the White House" making it political communications and subject to FEC regulations. It has been reported that MoveOn paid $65,000 for the ad by

ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/story?id=3581727&page=1
and the NY Post
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm.

The rate card price of such an ad on the NY Times political advocacy rate card is $181,692.

I sold political advertising for Capital Newspapers in Madison, WI during the 2006 elections. We were informed that there could be absolutely no discounts to the rate card prices for political or advocacy advertising based on federal law. The reason was self-evidently to stop the paper from favoring one viewpoint over another. It seems evident that if the reports are true, the NY Times has favored MoveOn by offering a huge discount to them for political advocacy advertising.

I request an investigation to determine if the law has been broken by the NY Times and/or MoveOn.org.

Complainant:

James Hanson
XXXXXXXXXXXX
Madison, WI 53703
XXXXXXXXXXXX
jimbo AT unclejimbo.com

Respondents:
MoveOn.org
New York Times

Cordially,
Jim

[link]

Al said...

Commie Hillary Clinton wants health insurance proof before you can work

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_ap_interview_6

John Cooper said...

al wrote: "Commie Hillary Clinton wants health insurance proof before you can work."

...unless you're an illegal, of course.

Seriously, though, how they gonna' stop us from workin'?