Thursday, May 27, 2004

Selling defeat!

Recently, even the most strident supporters of the Iraqi war have been expressing concern over the current security situation in Iraq. This is an amazing development to me considering that we are just a little over a year from the beginning of the war in Iraq. I can only surmise that since this is an election year, certain classes in this country are scampering to make Iraq and the War on Terror look like a defeat to further their political goals. It is abhorrent to me to think that some would put political aspirations above the vested interests of this Country, but it appears there are those who do. I believe that many of the clamoring class have based their erroneous assumptions on the idea that Iraq had noting to do with the war on terror and that Iraq did no have WMD. Well there is evidence to the contrary:

1. From
The Czechs have long maintained that Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers in the United States, met with
Ahmed al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence official, posted to the Iraqi embassy in Prague. As Epstein now
reports, Czech authorities have discovered that al-Ani’s appointment calendar shows a scheduled
meeting on April 8, 2001 with a "Hamburg student."

2. Al-Zarqawi is known to
be a leader of Ansar al-Islam, a group that has ties to al Quaida. Al-Zarqawi was in Iraq prior to the War
and is currently conducting operations in Iraq now.

3. The Scotsman has reported
that "SADDAM Hussein had the ability to unleash biological and chemical weapons "at short notice" on
foreign nations, according to a potentially explosive new report by inspectors.
The leaked document, written by Charles Duelfer, the new director of the Iraq Survey group, concludes
that hard evidence does exist that Saddam had the ability to wreak terror with the weaponry."

4. Saddam
information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press
as "Baghdad Bob," approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an
overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.

5. WMDwas most likely shipped to Syria
prior to the war:

In every battle of every war there are set backs and triumphs. When one class focuses on the set backs simply for political gain they cease being a loyal opposition and begin acting like agents of the enemy. If there is are lessons that can be taken from the Vietnam experience they are that no war can be won, regardless of victories on the battlefield, without public support. Furthermore, a select minority in key places can degrade public support by ignoring important victories while hyping, if not exaggerating, setbacks. Von Molke once said that "The plan never survives contact with the enemy" It appears that some in this country claim defeat when the plan is changed do to changing combat situations or contact with the enemy. Those so quickly to claim defeat simply because their own political fortunes are tied to the defeat of a plan or the country should not be allowed to shape the debate and overpower the ground truth of success we have experienced so far in the war on Terror(INCLUDING IRAQ!) There will be future setbacks, WE WILL GET HIT AGAIN! not do the incompetence of one, nor do to a lack of funding in domestic security, but simply because it is the nature of war. AND DO NOT BE MISTAKEN WE ARE ENGAGED IN A WAR!

Monday, May 24, 2004

Tonight President Bush outlined his plan for the return of Iraqi sovereignty. I will allow my readers to follow the link and judge the plan for themselves. What I would like to address is the near deafening absence of the President's speech from the three major networks( CBS, NBC, ABC). How can the Networks justify not televising such an important speech; a speech that outlines plans that WILL have an historic impact on this Nation's future security?

I have a rather cynical theory: I believe that most people( much to the dismay of the Bloggsphere) still get their news from the three major networks.; Those networks have not been kind to the President or this Nation, Have hindered the War on terror, and have harmed some of the Nation's soldiers(And in case there is any ambiguity, I am saying that actions of the press have caused American lives); That the three major networks have taken upon themselves to unseat the President, a President they disagree with on an ideological level; That in order to achieve the previous goal, they will engage in anything from misinformation ( including presenting the NEWS in such a manner that only the negative aspects of the war are emphasized while completely ignoring the positive aspects of the War in Iraq) to a policy of complete ignorance of established administration policy(if the networks do not show it, it does not exist); Finally, the networks have pursued a goal of demoralizing the American moral for the War on Terror(including Iraq) by ignoring key facts including: 1. YES WMD HAS BEEN FOUND IN IRAQ(a sarin bomb exploded last week) 2. Saddam did have ties with foreign terrorists(check out this link) and 3. The administration DID HAVE A PLAN(see the Presidential address tonight){ some my ask why this was not presented earlier, I ask in response, is it wise to tip off our enemies as to what we plan on doing?}

Because of the above mentioned indiscretions by the three networks, I am calling for a boycott of the three major news Networks and a letter writing campaign calling for a change in their current "News" policy.
Please send a message to the following links expressing your displeasure as to the networks' decision not to air the Presidential address.




It is also important for People NOT TO WATCH THE THREE MAJOR "NEWS" NETOWRKS. Only the Viewer can put pressure on the networks to change their way; Only the viewer has the power to Fire the major networks by simply not watching!



Though it is true that the White House did not request that the three Major networks carry the address, why should it be contingent upon the White House to ask for coverage in such an important address. Also, it is a true that those who have followed the Iraqi policy of reconstruction saw nothing new in this speech, this was, however, the first the administration put together its plan in one clear speech and the majority of people who do not follow administration policy as closely as those interested in politics would have found the address very helpful. The fact is this was news and the three major networks dropped the ball!

Thanks to InstaPundit for the link.

Monday, May 10, 2004

Which side of the War on Terror is the US media on?

When four American contractors were brutally massacred, the US media made the decision not to publish the gruesome pictures of the dead. The media collectively feared that the images would arouse the "American street" which could lead to an anti-Islamic backlash. However, when six misguided US soldiers engage in physical and mental humiliation, the media , throwing all caution aside, makes pictures of the incidents the headline to every major "news" paper and "News" program in the US. Why no fear that such images would arouse anti-American feelings? Why no concern that the images would lead to more attacks on US interests throughout the world? Why no concern that the images would undermine our efforts in the Global war on Terror?