Arrest these traitors now
As Charles says, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that the NYT is itching for a showdown with the Bush admin over the leaking of classified information directly harmful to the war effort:
WASHINGTON, June 24 — The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.
According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007.
Under the plan, the first reductions would involve two combat brigades that would rotate out of Iraq in September without being replaced. Military officials do not typically characterize reductions by total troop numbers, but rather by brigades. Combat brigades, which generally have about 3,500 troops, do not make up the bulk of the 127,000-member American force in Iraq, and other kinds of units would not be pulled out as quickly.
American officials emphasized that any withdrawals would depend on continued progress, including the development of competent Iraqi security forces, a reduction in Sunni Arab hostility toward the new Iraqi government and the assumption that the insurgency will not expand beyond Iraq’s six central provinces. Even so, the projected troop withdrawals in 2007 are more significant than many experts had expected.
General Casey’s briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity.
Bold mine. One doesn’t have to be a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorist to see that what the NYT hopes to do here is provoke said showdown, with the ultimate goal of disrupting the Bush admin’s ability to continue the War on Terrorism, a war the NYT in its boundless liberal arrogance thinks is unjust and wants to see ended — preferably, one presumes, to foster a return to Clinton-style fecklessness and supine weakness.
Not content for decades now to merely report the news, the NYT is accustomed to having its foreign-policy pronouncements heeded. And if the American lumpenproletariat, in their benighted state of harlequin foozlement, decide to go against the advice of their betters and elect someone the NYT considers unsuitable, well, they’ll have to be yanked forcibly back to the path of enlightenment — and that unsuitable someone kept on a very short leash.
Well, enough is enough, I say. The NYT is in league with the enemy; they must be stopped as surely as the Islamists must be. To allow these almost daily outrages to continue is to concede that the word “treason” is now wholly without meaning, and the commission of it without consequences. In fact, not taking action to stop this is to allow the idea that Americans may choose to be governed by anybody the NYT disapproves of to be undermined and, in any real and practical sense, eventually destroyed. Lincoln never did say, “government of the NYT, by the NYT, and for the NYT…” But if this rogue Times Square elephant isn’t checked, that’s essentially what we’re going to end up with.
Lock these America-hating bastards up, now — both the traitors responsible for the leaks, and the “journalists” enemy agents who print them. Fairly try and, if warranted, hang a few of them. Maybe then the rest will recognize that unelected, out-of-control liberal journalists do not, should not, and cannot wield the same sort of power over foreign policy that the people’s elected representatives do. There is no such thing as a “journalist’s veto” in this country, despite what the NYT’s elitist-swine junta seems to think.
Update! Via Glenn: “Because the war on terror is fought in a peacetime atmosphere, treason can be presented as dissent, and you can get away with it. By blurring the line between legitimate dissent and active assistance to the enemy, political opportunism has sunk to new lows.” Indeed it has. Read the rest. And a true-and-blue note from Austin Bay:
The Bush Administration should prosecute the leakers, but I don’t think the Administration has the spine for this. The Bush Administration could barely prosecute Sandy Berger for abuse of classified material that would have put a solder in jail. Here’s the political scenario: The Times and its allies would portray the prosecution as a “show trial” of constitutional and civil rights violations by Bush – especially if any charges are filed before November 2006.
The rest of the MSM would line up behind the NYT’s pirate banner like the lemmings they are, in the name of protecting a fabricated First Amendment right to commit treason. Liberal screechmonkeys would be howling in the streets in support of their Old Media kindred souls. But it’s still the right thing to do.
- Entries
Boycott the NYtimes, no links, no clicks, no visits,
chanting "attica!, attica!, attica!" is optional.
http://coonassintexas.blogspot.com/2006/06/boycott-ny-times.html
It is a general right, it does not adhere to a class of citizens - as Professor Reynolds points out - the Constitution prohibits titles of nobility. There are very few prior restraints on the freedom to publish, but there is always the possibility of punishment after the fact. An example being a defamation suit.
Michael Barone has commented on this and is wary about prosecuting the New York Times for this. I do not share his concern. Having an i.d. card from the Times or CBS or any other media company does not get one, should not be allowed to get one, any special privilege that is not enjoyed by any other citizen. If I could be prosecuted for revealing this information, then the reporters, editors, and publishers of the Times should be prosecuted also. No special privileges for self-appointed self-annointed elites. Not in this republic.
And before someone comments with the old saying about how the press is the watchdog on government, protecting our liberties, let me just ask: Who elected them? Who appointed them? And who provides a check-and-balance to their power? And if their power is not to be checked, wouldn't that be a danger to the republic?
No one should be above the law. That goes for Mr. Keller, Mr. Sulzberger as well as myself.
subtracting from a membership some of whom will eventually come to this continent and use the excellent training ground Bush provided them in Iraq. The NYT is performing a conservative
public service whether it realizes it or not.
Ken, you are as disgusting as Colonel McCormick, who published the Rainbow war plans just before Pearl Harbor. Despicable, unpatriotic, nacissistic - your only love is given to your opinions and to the devil with the democratic process of the republic and the decisions of the representatives elected by the citizenry - if you can't get your way constitutionally, legally, why then a little treachery will do, won't it?
Slither away, slimy serpent and call yourself not our countryman.
*Electron microscope required to properly measure this depth.
"can't convince the public it is correct"..
a little obtuse but the public has rejected Bush's linkage of the Iraq War with the war on terror.
Congress itself has never formally endorsed a "war on terror", never even had the guts to formally endorse the Iraq War, as demanded by the Constitution.
In other words Congress has abrogated its responsibility to the Executive.
Patriotism is not only the last refuge of warmongering scoundrels but also in the eye of
the beholder.
Again, you show your true colors when you equate your patriotism to your particular political ideas. There your true loyalty lies. Despicable will do as a description for now, though vile may be the better choice.
*It is laughable to believe that FDR knew of the Pearl Harbor attack but let it occur anyway. Laughable for reasons so obvious that only a complete hard-right paleo-isolationist could flat out ignore them, and that's all the pixels that need to be spilled on that subject.
And the more elongated the Iraq loss (Iran being the winner) the more crotchety you get,the more "traitors" you find and will continue to find...among the "hard left" the "hard right"
the "mainstream media" ,you name it.
YOUR particular political idea is imperialism. And of course you fully approve of the first
little thrust toward it,the first wellspring, don't you?
That is, those legion Northerners who wanted no part of the tyrant Lincoln's war of northern aggression were (at the very least) "unpatriotic" and those "despicable" masses deserved to be rounded up and incarcerated under habeus corpus, right, Mike?
Tyranny masquerading as patriotism,now writ worldwide. That's your ticket,Mike, but its on the wane. Deal with it.
It is obvious you know nothing about the law, the constitution, or American history. Strange to profess love for your country as you work to hamper its efforts under its constitutionally elected and appointed authority.
But that is always the burden of the ideologue, everything is viewed through the prisim of the ideology, and thus the ever-treacherous left and the unappeasable rght join together in a glorious union dedicated to destruction of the American experiment, all in the name of a greater good that never was and never will be.
Despicable you are, and despicable you will remain. And I thank God that the only thing you are capable of is near-incoherent rants on the comments thread at a blog. If you put half a mind to it, which is one-half a mind more than you have, you'd be dangerous to the republic.
Go on, stew, work your conspiracy theories, rant, rave, connect all the dots in your head. It should help keep you out of real trouble.
The rest of us actually have more important things to do, even if it is just to crack a beer, than listen to the nut down at the far end of the bar.
Also Robert Stinnett's "Day of Deceit" proving FDRs complicity in Pearl Harbor. I also humbly acknowledge occasional work for Barnes Review, an excellent historical periodical whose namesake Harry Elmer Barnes would be a good study for presumptive empire-advocate MikeyNTH..
One personal hobby,perhaps a weakness, is observing reactions of pseudo-conservatives, neocons and their fellow travelers, to doomed interventionist Mideast foreign policy even
as domestic problems sap the ability of the Republic to maintain empire.
One might believe they'd get priorities in order when betrayed by plutocrat cheap-labor lover
Bush, but they are soooo slow.
(See: Japan - Commodore Matthew C. Perry.)
(2) The Civil War is 141 years over; that constitutional argument is long at rest and settled. Once a state is in the union it can't leave.
(3)Yeah, right. FDR wanted the battle fleet gutted before going into a war in the Pacific. Sure thing, pal; sure thing.
Why don't you make a noise like a hoop and roll away back to your "America First" meeting? You don't have anything to say but the usual litany of "empire" "oil" "plutocrats" etc.
The fact that you would endorse sedition, which could result in US troops and citizens being killed by a barbaric enemy who has vowed to bring the world under his banner, all so you can advance a particular foreign policy (one which has been proven again and again to be unworkable) tells us all exactly what you are, Ken - a treacherous vile snake.
Farewll, ken - no, wait - fare-ill; I don't wish you or your kind well.
Mike, are you pulling our leg here? Is this looney tune for real?
"Treason is the highest form of Patriotism."
Benedict Arnold
As found in Ace's latest book - "Stuff the Founding Dudes Said, Vol. IV."
Of all the crimes we must someday hold the ACLU accountable for, emptying the asylums is definitely in the top ten.
Randy, harshing my mellow by reminding me of all the
shitboxesstreet rod shops I've worked for isn't niceBush didn't pick this war, dude. This war has been on for 30 plus years now, we just ain't been fightin' it. Ever hear of the Shah?
Then there's this
Ever hear of Wahhabi Islam? Ever hear of a Madrassa? We didn't add to anything. All Iraq was was a call to arms for the already trained and indoctrinated. It would have happened somewhere, sometime. I'm just happy it ain't here. There are Madrassa's in California, you know. Terrorrists were being trained before the Iraq war started, before the first Iraq war. Heck, they had great training grounds in Kosovo. Many of the ones captured or killed now were trained or fought there. Are you against that excursion as well?
He operates on the theory that if you leave them alone they will leave you alone, only ratcheted up into an intenational scale.
I've never known that to work in my personal life, and I don't see how it can work in the big, wide world.
ended a "Constitutional argument" too. Go to League of the South's website for further
information/application to today's America..
Yeah, FDR needed to turn around a populace still at 90% opposing US participation in the
war. Despite the best the Anglophiles and the Jewish interests could do for several years to turn it around (reference Charles Lindbergh's famous speech).
"A barbaric enemy who has vowed to bring the world under his banner."...Hah! And possesses not
ONE army, navy or air force. And which leader bin Laden offered a truce in which America's departure from the Islamic world would be reciprocated by no further ragtag incursions here.
When all the traitors, sedition-endorsers and fellow travelling jihadists (no matter
how secular) are finally rounded up, how will you pay for the World Trade Center-sized
spaces to house them? And fight with only 60% of the non-Murtha sympathizing troops left?
Pofarmer
Every poll taken in every Moslem country in the world affirms: America is hated and madrassa membership grows exponentially BECAUSE OF OUR INTERVENTION IN THEIR PART OF THE WORLD AND SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL. Nothing sparked Madrassa growth like 1948's tragedy.
The Soviet Empire collapsed and the Russians got back to business reinvigorating their country.
The American Empire will collapse ---but will the collapse be accompanied by loss of the Southwest to Hispanic revanchism and widescale civil disturbance in our major cities leading to
throughgoing Balkanization? Or can we come home and clean house before its too late?
The problem for Ken - besides all the yammering about empire and such (can anyone name our current Viceroy of Germany? Who is the Governor-General of Japan?) is Israel, and American support for it, not with the people who are calling for our deaths (militarily weak they may be). The far right has found an alliance with the far left in order to destroy the war effort, each for their own reasons.
Pretty sick and pretty twisted, and fortunately not influential at all except in the mouths of certain nitwit Democrats (but I repeat myself).
When they actually make a threat, then I'll take them seriously, and you, Ken. As seriously as I take a threat from anyone who wants to destroy the nation (and me while they are at it). You know, like those militarily weak Islamofascists who happened to kill over 3,000 Americans in one day. You know, an active enemy with articulated threats.
And, America's departure from the Islamic world would leave what? Exactly? I like Ann Coulter's idea. Send the missionairies and convert em.
Why does it always have to be about Israel? Why can't it be about the Muslims, ya know?
unstable by our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The "far right" and the "far left" obviously have less effect currently on US direction than
general demoralization resulting from 1.plain old-fashioned quagmire based on pre-war arrogance of the kind if I checked what you guys were predicting pre-war, I'd probably find.
and 2. exposure of Bush's lies.
Not a good overture for a "intergenerational" war on terror.Not at all.
a great truthteller on Iraq-and pre-war predictor of quagmire the conservative Marine,
Scott Ritter, please take his counsel...
Reading the Trout Wrapper article, though, I was struck by the muted response of Admin officials. You would anticipate them going postal, especially after all the NYT bullshit of recent months. Not so. Both the infamous 'White House official' and Rumsfeld - Rumsfeld !! - are quoted, and their responses don't seem angry to me.
The NYT reveals the contents of a classified military briefing. Duh, we already knew the NYT lacks scruples, honor and integrity. No news there. The Birdcage Liner also identifies two combat brigades, by name, as candidates for re-deployment, and I think that sucks -- for tactical and strategic reasons.
Is Bush simply using the media? Surrendering to the Slimes? Good leak or bad leak? A trap for the DemonCrats? Who knows? I sure don't.
For my part, a leak is a leak. Bush can de-classify what he wants, when he wants. He has the authority to do so, so that's not a leak. He doesn't need the NYT to put an Iraq drawdown plan into the public domain, so WTF?
Comments? (No Ken, not you.You've been voted off the island. Buh-bye.)
A: 9/11.
Defeat in Iraq and victory to Iran. Any more questions? The answers will probably worsen with time.
Yep, all done by Liberals, by the way.
Ken
You're starting to sound like a skin head.