Latest Entry: GruberGate - the best of     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« Muslim Blogger Speaks Out On 'Muslim Silence' | Main | New Evidence In The Haditha Incident - Evidence That Indicates John 'Cold Blooded Murder' Murtha Should Be Censored »

June 26, 2006

About Those Treasonous Media Leaks Of Our National Secrets During A Time Of War: Didn't We Execute The Rosenbergs For Less? (Updated)

Topics: Iraq

(Updates at bottom of post)

Just a few quick comments about what the New York Times, The L.A. Times, and the Wall Street Journal have done in divulging government secrets used to defend Americans against our terrorist enemy during a time of war.

The Rosenbergs were executed for a lot less - conspiracy to commit espionage for helping the Soviet Union steal the secrets to the atomic bomb from the United States during World War II.

Wouldn't executing Risen, Lichtblau, and Keller for treason (along with the person or persons responsible for leaking the government secrets) bring with it the ancillary benefit of encouraging other journalists and editors to find more socially beneficial ways to win a Pulitzer Prize and government leakers other ways of carrying out their leftwing Democratic party-supporting political agenda?

Article III, Section 3, of the federal Constitution sets forth the definition of treason in the United States. Any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them aid and comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war.

The American Thinker offers a less forceful solution. I personally prefer my own.

Update: Partisan Times has a collection of running updates from the blogosphere.

Post Addendum: Owing to the fact that I've received several emails that essentially accuse me of being a whacko far-right neocon, I refer readers to my post titled, "Dear New York Times, L.A. Times, and The Wall Street Journal," in which I tell these self-appointed media pontiffs that they have placed my son's life in greater jeopardy, as they have also done with the lives of others fighting the War On Terror, and with every American living here and abroad. I also ask of you just who do these media jerks think they are? Who gave these unelected a--holes the right to make life and death decisions for the American people - decisions that affect the lives of our families, and especially our sons and daughters serving in our armed forces?

Now that I've had input from some of our friends that live on the outer fringes of reality, and a little time to think about my not-so-subtle comment about "executing" Risen, Lichtblau, and Keller for treason, I'd like to slightly amend my suggestion - the SOBs deserve to be shot at sunrise - without a trial. What they did, they did intentionally, after having been warned by both the President of the United States and members of Congress of it's affect on specific sources and methods our nation uses to prevent our enemies from killing us.

After all, the thousands killed on 9/11 and since, and our service men and women who have died fighting the war on terror and who will be dying in greater numbers for a lot longer than would be necessary had the NYT not handed our enemy a gift to evade capture and extend the war, haven't been given a trial, nor have they had the luxury of having a liberal media to support their position.

Captain Ed weighs in on Keller's response: "Outgoing Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose low-key leadership led to his eventual replacement, has ensured that he will make waves on his exit from the Bush Cabinet. Secretary Snow released a rebuttal to Bill Keller's wan explanation of his decision to expose covert tactics in tracking terrorist financing that all but calls Keller a liar. While Keller described efforts by the government to hold back publication of the story as "half-hearted", Snow reveals that Keller's association with the truth is half-assed... "

Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.

Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror. Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.

Read more of Captain Ed's commentary.

Update: Welcome to all our liberal friends arriving here from the Dao Report, The Carpetbagger Report, and the Martini Republic. The most special welcome goes out to the latter who says that Hyscience is a Wingnut blog and that we have made a strong bid for "Stupidest Blog Post of 2006" (looks like we captured MR's attention):

Wingnut blog Hyscience makes strong bid for Stupidest Blog Post of 2006:

"About Those Treasonous Media Leaks Of Our National Secrets During A Time Of War: Didn't We Execute The Rosenbergs For Less?"

Just a few quick comments about what the New York Times, The L.A. Times, and the Wall Street Journal have done in divulging government secrets used to defend Americans against our terrorist enemy during a time of war.

The Rosenbergs where [sic] executed for a lot less - conspiracy to commit espionage for helping the Soviet Union steal the secrets to the atomic bomb from the United States during World War II.

Hmmmm. . . let's see. . . .

On the one hand, we have the press reporting on our government breaking US laws, treaties and the Geneva Conventions, while shredding constitutional protections and lying to the American people about undertaking warrantless wiretaps.

On the other, we have a couple convicted of providing the totalitarian Soviet Union with secrets on how to construct the most awesome and devastating weapon in history, a weapon capable of destroying all human life on this planet.

Think. . . think. . . think. . . which is worse?

Gosh, MR, I don't know where to begin. But always being one to respect the opinion of a fellow blogger, albeit a left-thinking one with a penchant for not recognizing and enjoying a touch of satire, so typical of some of our friends on the "other side" of reality (I'll be kind here and let readers decide which side is "in touch"), what the press did was call attention to a not-too-secret, secret government program that we use to keep terrorists from using everything from suicide bombs to those "most awesome and devastating weapons" you speak of, and the program broke no laws, treaties, or shredded constitutional protections. As for "lying to the public" and those "warantless wiretaps" you speak of, I'm afraid that you've mixed-up way too many stories to make sense within the context of our current topic.

By the way, the only way we can prosecute a war against a determined enemy is to fight them in every way that's legally possible. The program that the NYT made public was completely legal. The program is about international financial transactions. Al Qaeda did not know we had a program of that extent. They knew that we were making some progress. They knew that we had fairly good knowledge of what was going on in the U.S., but they did not know that we had that level of international cooperation. Al-Qaeda may have thought we had the capability, but now, thanks to the NYT, they know we do. The NYT acted only to embarass the administration; it didn't work.

The adminstration broke no laws, MR, as I'm sure you'll find out after re-checking your facts. On the other hand, although the NYT likely broke no laws, the leaker to the NYT did break national security laws, as did the Pentagon leaker from their previous story on the troop plans. Should Keller et. al. "actually" be executed, as in really shot at sunrise, blind-fold and all? Naawwwwww. Skip the blind-fold.

I'll let readers figure out whether I really mean it - or not.!.

BTW - we're always appreciative of being on the receiving end of a link. Hence the link and reference back to our friends.



Posted by Richard at June 26, 2006 10:41 AM


Articles Related to Iraq:

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference About Those Treasonous Media Leaks Of Our National Secrets During A Time Of War: Didn't We Execute The Rosenbergs For Less? (Updated):

» The Treasonous Times Must Be Prosecuted! -- UPDATED from PartisanTimes.com
(Scroll down for updates) The New York Times has once again escalated its Journalistic Jihad against the American people, proving beyond all doubt that the Times' personal interests violently clash with America's public interest. On Friday, the NY Time... [Read More]

Tracked on June 26, 2006 04:44 PM

» Secretary John Snow to NY Times, Bill Keller - Offensive and Damaging from Webloggin
News organizations have been actively seeking to infiltrate established intelligence agencies of the U.S. government in search of classified information. This act, when done on behalf of a foreign government or an enemy of the state is called spying. ... [Read More]

Tracked on June 26, 2006 09:07 PM

» Isn’t Brittany Spears worse than Adolf Hitler? from Martini Republic
Wingnut blog Hyscience makes strong bid for Stupidest Blog Post of 2006: “About Those Treasonous Media Leaks Of Our National Secrets During A Time Of War: Didn’t We Execute The Rosenbergs For Less?” Just a few quick comments abo... [Read More]

Tracked on June 27, 2006 02:36 PM

Comments

Um, no. The Rosenbergs wer executed for passing *secrets* to the *enemy*. This program was not a secret, it has been reported on numerous times (e.g., http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec01/funds_12-4.html
from 2001) and the information was being passed to *us*, who are affected by it. Save your execution fantasies for those qho are really deserving of it.

# Posted by zen_less at 06/27/2006 10:03 am - reply- forum

Hello "Zen-less," or better named, "clueless."

The existance of the program was known, not the sources and methods, details which provide the terrorists knowledge of exactly how and where we are getting the information to get them.

Even the NYT said this in Kellers original response and in the article itself - otherwise, the NYT would not have published the info in the first place.

As for your comment "... and the information was being passed to *us*, who are affected by it," your are absolutely one hundred percent correct. Yes, it is "us" who are affected by it. Our lives, our loved ones fighting the terrorists around the world. And, as happened to those killed on 9/11, you and I, and our loved ones, are in danger of being killed by Islamic terrorists, our enemy, and who are now much more informed thanks to the NYT, and subsequently, because of them covering the story, the LAT and WSJ.

BTW, I apologize for calling you clueless. I should have pointed out that being both better informed and "wide awake" to the dynamics of what is really going on in the so-called WOT (which is really a war against Islamofascism and Islamists), makes for a more balanced understanding of the NYT's agenda.

The NYT has greatly increased the likelyhood of you and I being killed by terrorists, and to an even higher degree, placed my son and others at greater risk of being killed in Iraq.

# Posted by Richard at 06/27/2006 10:28 am - reply- forum

Subject: Much Ado About Nothing
The NY Times revealing US monitoring of SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) transactions is in reality a huge non-story.

Similar information was incorporated into the report of the UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group to the UN Security Council in December 2002, and is still available on the UN Website.

Paragraph 31 of the report states:
The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.
Suggestions that SWIFT and similar transactions be monitored by investigative agencies dealing with terrorism have circulated for quite some time. An MIT paper discussed the pros and cons of such practices in 1995.

Once again, administration apologists attack the Constitution and its guarantees of freedom of the press because the press prints commonly available information; information any terrorist would already be factoring into his plans. I always thought conservatives were in favor of less government intrusion, but then many cherished childhood myths die to disillusionment.

Information on surveillance of bank transfers has been public for four years; the idea that terrorists are aided by the Times story is simply preposterous. Let those making such allegations empirically demonstrate one untoward result of the Times story.

Rather than treason, this is one more desperate attempt by the Bush Administration to deflect attention from increasingly deteriorating conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the continuing inability of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to competently perform their duties of office.

# Posted by bobdevo at 06/27/2006 01:09 pm - reply- forum

Quote:
Rather than treason, this is one more desperate attempt by the Bush Administration to deflect attention from increasingly deteriorating conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the continuing inability of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to competently perform their duties of office.


Given your last comments, in quote above, you just lost your argument. You wear your agenda on your sleeve, and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to make a difference. You see and hear only what you wish to hear, and that which fits your political persuasion. Truth be damned.

However, you are always welcome to your opinion.

# Posted by Richard at 06/27/2006 02:09 pm - reply- forum

richard: Given your comments . . .you just lost your argument

Geeze, richard, where I come from telling the truth wins arguments. No one has been able to demonstrate any empirical harm; the information is stale news since 2002; both Iraq and Afghanistan are deteriorating.

Or would you care to make the argument that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are demonstrably competent?

# Posted by bobdevo at 06/27/2006 02:27 pm - reply- forum

Bob,
The argument comment has to do with your agenda on your sleeve - since I take your comments at face value and accept your comments as being what you truly believe to be true.

I disagree with you, significantly. We obviously have different world views, only one of which bears a reflection of truth.

What is true is that we are at war, a determined enemy is trying to kill us, and that those of us that recognize the real enemy, and it's not us, will ultimately have to carry the day for those that believe the enemy is other than the Islamists - but America.

Like it or not Bob, the current administration is responsible for administrating the war, not those that are sitting outside the administration and our military.

If you've ever been in a firefight, you know that all plans go out the door the moment the other guy gets a choice, and he does. Mistakes are made in war, and the winner is always the guy, unit, army, and nation that makes the least, and adjusts the most.

That Bob, just happens to be the way things really are. We obviously disagree here, but unfortunately, if I'm wrong - we're both dead, and al-Qaeda wins. Then it's Friday prayers for all of us.

# Posted by Richard at 06/27/2006 03:31 pm - reply- forum

If you believe in the death penalty so wholeheartedly, than maybe you should be executed, since you're calling for the murder of journalists. You lunatics have no respect for the first amendendment, what, with your flag burning amendment and your constant attacks on anyone in the media who dares disagree with you.

The FACT is, this WASN'T EVEN A SECRET!!
Do a little reading:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/28/terrorist_funds_tracking_no_secret_some_say/

# Posted by TGintheUSA at 06/28/2006 10:26 am - reply- forum

TG,
No, perhaps you should read the whole post.

You are not in touch with the facts - read the whole post.

And no, I am not in favor of the death penalty. Think - satire. I call your attention to the following excerpt:

Quote:
By the way, the only way we can prosecute a war against a determined enemy is to fight them in every way that's legally possible. The program that the NYT made public was completely legal. The program is about international financial transactions. Al Qaeda did not know we had a program of that extent. They knew that we were making some progress. They knew that we had fairly good knowledge of what was going on in the U.S., but they did not know that we had that level of international cooperation. Al-Qaeda may have thought we had the capability, but now, thanks to the NYT, they know we do. The NYT acted only to embarass the administration; it didn't work.

The adminstration broke no laws, MR, as I'm sure you'll find out after re-checking your facts. On the other hand, although the NYT likely broke no laws, the leaker to the NYT did break national security laws, as did the Pentagon leaker from their previous story on the troop plans. Should Keller et. al. "actually" be executed, as in really shot at sunrise, blindfold and all? Naawwwwww - skip the blindfold. I'll let readers figure out whether I really mean it - or not.!.


Thanks for your comments, anyway. Because you asked, someone else might now think a little more about the real issue here.

BTW, in the first instance, I know better than to leak national secrets, long carried a top secret clearance in the Marines, and care more about my country than my own personal political agenda.

Unlike those journalists you speak of.

# Posted by Richard at 06/28/2006 11:06 am - reply- forum

Subject: Big Bad Wolf
Richard:

"if I'm wrong - we're both dead"

Richard, we do see this differently. I'm not afraid of the big, bad wolf, nor am I afraid of al-Qaeda. Their best efforts have resulted in 3,000 deaths in the US.

We kill that many people every month on the road, and the government response is to ignore enhanced safety features and up the speed limit.

We kill that many people every month with handguns, and the government's response is to do away with the ban on assault weapons and allow arms sales at flea markets.

According to the AMA, between 5,000 and 10,000 Americans are killed every month by medical errors in hospitals, and the government response is to put caps on damage awards for malpractice.

Meanwhile, 3,000 get killed in a one-time fluke, and the government wants to throw the Constitution out the window, violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and invade Iraq without justification. Can that be considered an appropriate response? I think not.

Every American is far more at risk from his next-door neighbor's SUV than from any towelhead running around South Jerkistan.

# Posted by bobdevo at 06/28/2006 12:46 pm - reply- forum

Bob,
I'm afraid you are being terribly naive, with little regard for the problems we are facing with those "Towel Heads" you refer to.

Only one of us is right. Unfortunately, your perspectives are shared by so many on the Left, and the rest of us have to fight for your freedom to believe whatever you chose to believe.

For now, we'll have to agree to disagree. It's obvious that until you or your family dies or looses their freedom to sharia, you'll never believe otherwise. As with Europe when much of it slept while Hitler advanced his ideology, we have the same problem here in America.

I may write to engage and raise a little hell now and then, but I'm an experienced international scientist with a lifetime of experience in the Middle East and Europe - I'm not speaking without some insight. Hope to see you join the fight against the "Towel Head" ideology, but it looks as though that will have to wait.

BTW - several Muslims write under the name Richard at Hyscience and Freedom's Zone, and Hyscience and FZ are the annonymous hosts for Muslim bloggers all over the world. These are all moderate Muslims, and they have very different views of the threat than your own. They are frankly, scared to death of the jihad ideology, and the threat to our lives and freedoms that we face from it.

# Posted by Richard at 06/28/2006 01:35 pm - reply- forum

Subject: We are the enemy they keep secrets from
The US government has always - particularly since the end of the second world war - kept secrets from their constituents. Agencies do this to enhance their competition against other agencies, individual office-holders prote it in order to make their political lives easier, and -most significantly - corporate moles do it to keep us stupid so they can steal our money. The Bush administation exemplifies in spades this latter paradigm. They are the ones who need to stand to account for treasonous act after treasonous act.

Al Queada has left us alone since 9/11 because Bush quickly and fully conceded to Osama's single demand of us - that we remove our soldiers and bases from land that he considers to be holy - Saudi Arabia. That these military assets were moved to Iraq to unseat the regime of Osama's secularist enemy (Saddam) and to destabilize the country to a degree that the Shi'ite majority in that country (infidels, as far as Osama is concerned) could not assume firm control, well I guess our government just threw those favors in gratis.

The endless secrets are so we can't tell which of their fairy-tales are bogus, and we end up petrified by all of them, willing to spend our grandchildren's future so that...something won't happen! Americans - starting with you people - need to grow a national backbone and let some good, cleansing light into our government. Its the only way to attain real national security.

# Posted by wwmfjd at 06/28/2006 07:01 pm - reply- forum

Using your extremely naive and unlearned position, we should have simply published all of our battle plans in WWII, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

My friend, you are so very wrong, and your logic and extropolations from misplaced and inaccurate facts have the uncanny ring of those in all previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican, that refused to recognize the rising darkness of the Islamists.

Unfortunately, it is quite obvious that nothing I nor anyone else can say will have any effect whatsoever upon your view through a glass that will always be half-empty.

However, your comments are always worth listening to, by someone.

# Posted by Richard at 06/28/2006 07:21 pm - reply- forum

Subject: Al Queda Calrification
Dear wwmfjd:

I will just add to your post that Al-queda has left us alone, because our elite forces (CIA, etc) killed about 40,000 of them in less than 60 days in Afghanistan shortly after 911. I guess you could say their attrition rate has overcome their ability to project their terror initiatives around the world. I suspect we have exceeded parity with Al-queda's ability to recruit versus our ability to kill them.

My apologies, if the media did not shine their light on this little tidbit. It seems the American media has an aversion for wholesale killing ... reminds them too much of death camps, I suppose.

Lastly, on a more personal note, I was wondering if you ever wore the uniform of country? Since you mentioned the notion of backbone, I was just curious what part you may have played in our nation's security.

With Aloha,

# Posted by harry at 06/28/2006 07:39 pm - reply- forum

Harry,
Semper Fi!

# Posted by Richard at 06/28/2006 08:15 pm - reply- forum

Subject: Re: Al Queda Calrification
harry wrote:
Dear wwmfjd:

I will just add to your post that Al-queda has left us alone, because our elite forces (CIA, etc) killed about 40,000 of them in less than 60 days in Afghanistan shortly after 911. I guess you could say their attrition rate has overcome their ability to project their terror initiatives around the world. I suspect we have exceeded parity with Al-queda's ability to recruit versus our ability to kill them.

My apologies, if the media did not shine their light on this little tidbit. It seems the American media has an aversion for wholesale killing ... reminds them too much of death camps, I suppose.

Lastly, on a more personal note, I was wondering if you ever wore the uniform of country? Since you mentioned the notion of backbone, I was just curious what part you may have played in our nation's security.

With Aloha,





Richard, there never were "40,000" Al Qeada - or else our government was just lying to us again. No I've never been in the military. One part I play in maintaining our national security is to pay attention and to not start screaming, every time the MIC wants me to, to send our soldiers off to die and kill for what General Smedley Butler called "a racket for Wall Street". I have to admit, I haven't been very successful, and as a result our country's future is in the crapper.

# Posted by wwmfjd at 06/28/2006 08:29 pm - reply- forum

richard wrote:
Using your extremely naive and unlearned position, we should have simply published all of our battle plans in WWII, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

My friend, you are so very wrong, and your logic and extropolations from misplaced and inaccurate facts have the uncanny ring of those in all previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican, that refused to recognize the rising darkness of the Islamists.

Unfortunately, it is quite obvious that nothing I nor anyone else can say will have any effect whatsoever upon your view through a glass that will always be half-empty.

However, your comments are always worth listening to, by someone.




Oops, I thought it was "Richard" I was responding to below - but it was Harry.

Richard; this war is not anything like WWI, WWII, or Korea. It is, clearly, 100% analogous to Vietnam (we are in a civil war we invented; our declared adversary is imaginary; our real enemy has no greivance with us beyond our occupation of their country; our soldiers are killed and wounded primarilly with IED's;...) the biggest differences (beyond, of course terrain, culture, and climate) is that our real enemy has no secure territory from which to be supplied, and the fact that the role of American corporations profiting from the chaos is far more prominent, influencial, and unified with the center of American power.

As for the "rising darkness of the Islamists", it is clear to me that the random devastation we have wrought in Iraq is what has created a situation in which such rhetoric may actually be borne out. People bereaved of their loved ones for reasons they do not understand or believe, and bereft of the infrastructure essential for modern civil society are clearly more suseptible to a fundamentalist, manicheaen world-view preached by self-proclaimed saviors. This war has promoted Osama well beyond his original fringe audience.

# Posted by wwmfjd at 06/28/2006 08:46 pm - reply- forum

Subject: 40,000?
Dear wwmfjd:

Well, while you were screaming about someone else going off to war, Al Queda took some serious casualties ... compliments of some 500 or so special forces personnel under the Bush direction of the CIA. And, I admit, 40,000 dead ... blown to bits ... Al Queda armed-combatants are difficult to count. Al Queda compounds our accounting efforts by not requiring their militants to wear ID tags. So, I cannot ascertain that some 40,000 were killed ... some estimates have it at 60,000 armed-combatants with Talaban warriors included. And, I am quite sure that our CIA operatives made little effort to notify their next of kin and/or separate the cornucopia of body parts. Please understand that our CIA special units move quickly when they are killing wholesale.

But, rest assured, a short time after 911, the Afghan grass and shrubbery was deluged with fresh Al Queda blood. The CIA would have killed Osama bin Laden, as well, however, politics got in the way and our man on-scene & in-charge was relieved for refusing an Al Queda surrender plea at Tora Bora. As I understand, the CIA leader on-scene responded to Osama that he intended to kill them all ... there would be no surrender. Naturally, our liberal-minded politicians could not stomach something like that, so in true backdoor politicking style changes on-scene were made in order to appease our allies. Osama bin Laden is a son of Saudi influence.

The CIA leader on-scene was from New York state. I suppose he was a little upset with Al Queda and 911 was fresh in his mind.

As for the lying, as far as I know it was public knowledge that Al Queda had these combatant numbers in Afghanistan, along with tens of thousands of Talaban armed-warriors intermixed with their units. Rest assured, those Al Queda-Talaban warriors who did not see the wisdom of "changing sides" (hardcore Muslim warriors do that often) were either dead or being massacred in the hills of Tora Bora by our aerial gunships (Afghan warlords refer to our gunships as the "Death Ray").

Don't be too quick to discount our government. Just think of what will come down if this Iraq experiment fails. I believe our government ... contrary to my personal beliefs ... is handling the matter in Iraq and Afghanistan in the most human manner possible. If you disagree, then that is fine; however, Fundamentalist Islam will be annihilated ... one way or the other. All the screaming in the world will not alter the inevitable. The West cannot co-exists with Fundamentalist Islam.

With Aloha,

# Posted by harry at 06/28/2006 09:29 pm - reply- forum

wwmfjd,
Sorry guy, you're among people that have walked the walk, not just sat outside and punted.

You're talking to a United States Recon Marine who knows a bit about Vietnam. You're barking up the wrong tree - have no idea what you're talking about. In addition, my son has served three tours in Iraq - just volunteered to go back again, all 24/7 combat. He'd be the first to tell you you're all wet. Also, have two nephews, one a Marine sniper - two tours in Iraq. The other is a Marine in Afghanistan.

You've lost my respect fella, maybe Harry will give you some time, but I doubt it. Harry's walked the walk himself.

Color me outtta here!

# Posted by Richard at 06/28/2006 09:52 pm - reply- forum

wwmfjd,
Sorry guy, you're among people that have walked the walk, not just sat outside and punted.

You're talking to a United States Recon Marine who knows a bit about Vietnam. You're barking up the wrong tree - have no idea what you're talking about. In addition, my son has served three tours in Iraq, all 24/7 combat. - and volunteering to go back again. He'd be the first to tell you you're all wet, and I'm willing to bet you'd be damned reluctant to tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about, at least not to his face.

I Also, have two nephews, one a Marine sniper - two tours in Iraq. The other is a Marine in Afghanistan.

You've lost my respect fella, besides the Vietnam comment, you're talking out of talking points from the left, not expeience and understanding. Maybe Harry will give you some time, but I doubt it. Harry's walked the walk himself.

This war has nothing to do with politics - we didn't start it, and it's been going on long before 9/11 - bin-Laden declared the war, not us. It's about survival as a nation the citizenry, your's as well as mine, and everyone else's in America.

You do, however, deserve respect for being man enough to admit that you 've never served your country.

Color me outtta here!

# Posted by Richard at 06/28/2006 10:05 pm - reply- forum

I'm sorry I've lost your respect, but sometimes there's no help for that. But US citizenship is not conferred only to those in the military, and I speak out when I get the opportunity. I've argued my entire adult life for a mandatory military enlistment like Israel has - the resulting wide-based involvment would spell then end of corporate marketing for wars like the one we are in now.

Why do polls show that 70% of our troops in Iraq believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 - something that Bush himself has had to repudiate?

# Posted by wwmfjd at 06/28/2006 10:05 pm - reply- forum

wwmfjd wrote:
I'm sorry I've lost your respect, but sometimes there's no help for that. But US citizenship is not conferred only to those in the military, and I speak out when I get the opportunity. I've argued my entire adult life for a mandatory military enlistment like Israel has - the resulting wide-based involvment would spell then end of corporate marketing for wars like the one we are in now.

Why do polls show that 70% of our troops in Iraq believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 - something that Bush himself has had to repudiate?


wwmfjd,
Your comments are always welcome, and your opinions - respected. Your perspective, world view, and reading of the facts are simply incorrect. The respect issue has everything to do with thinking from an anti-war "talking point" perspective, rather than moving forward with eyes wide open.

As for you not serving in the military - that's not a problem. That's why there's people like me, Harry, my sons and nephews to do the fighting for you.

Warmest regards. and you're always welcome back

# Posted by Richard at 06/28/2006 10:17 pm - reply- forum

Subject: Compulsory Service
Dear wwmfjd:

Up to the 1960s, the United Stated held a compulsory military service for all able-bodied males. There existed temporary deferments for school and physical disabilities. However, all males knew after age of 19, they were obligated for six years military service (usually two years active and four years reserve). It was a good system that cycled many non-skilled males through a technical education program. Upon completion of the active portion of military service, an adult male, for the most part, could assume a technical skilled job in civilian industry.

During the later 1960s, with the advent of the Jewish-American-led protest movements, the US Congress acquiesced in amending the compulsory nature of military service and its draft mechanism. Eventually, with the enactment of 18-year-to-vote measure, compulsory service was replaced with an all volunteer force.

Now, it is clear, to me, who really benefited from the enactment of an all volunteer force: Persons of some degree of affluence were simply exempt from ever being inducted. Also, what seemed an obvious exchange for the right to vote at the age of 21 years was overlooked such that, with the voting age reduced to 18 years of age, military service disappeared as an inherent requirement. We now have adult males who eschew military service voting on sensitive issues of which they themselves would never choose to engage or even comprehend ... other than via TV.

Do we have a problem? Well, of course we do. We have people voting in ignorance of the reality of the world. Their concept of the world's reality comes from some liberal professor's (someone who likewise eschews military service) lectures. If all we can muster in our effort to negotiate the world is classroom dynamics, then we are like recruits explaining the feeling of jumping out of airplane that they have never seen, much less jumped out of. We chatter in ignorance. Yet, the ignorance acquires sensitivity to its shortcomings, and it votes accordingly.

Lastly, the liberal position, though appealing to some fantasized moral order, is just that ... a fantasy. It does not correspond to the real world anymore than Marxism. The classroom cannot teach you about the real world. You have to experience it.

With Aloha,

# Posted by harry at 06/29/2006 12:52 am - reply- forum

People like Harry, Richard, and their noble progeny are America's salt of the earth - there is absolutely not doubt there. My perspective - developed through the mentorship in my youth of three WWII vets, and close friendship in adulthood with two Vietnam vets - is that our National Security State cynically misuses the dedication and trust of such people to venal ends.

In the Iraq situation we have national leaders who all eschewed military service during brutal conflicts for which they were eligible and which they supported. Bush pulled strings to remain stateside during Vietnam, then bugged out - as he said to a Houston Chronicle reporter in 1984 - "I didn't want to blow my ear out with a shotgun or run off to Canada, so I joined the guard"; Rummy sat in college through Korea, then signed up at 22; Cheney had "other priorities" that kept him out of Vietnam and now, after only five years of his adult life in the public sector, he's worth over 190 million dollars - I didn't know congress paid that well. Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Frum; all the same. These people now create wars as profit centers for the corporations to which they are connected, and Harry, Richard, and their families pay the cost. The fact that we now have an all-volunteer military is used callously by our leadership to absolve themselves of guilt; you've heard them say it: "well, they volunteered...."

Furthermore, our leaders are supposed to act en loco parentis to our troops, and take command responsiblility for things that go wrong; not find the lowest ranking scapegoat for policy disasters and chucke them in jail. "Support our troops to this administration apparently means: blaming troops on the ground for not securing Saddam's stores of munitions and explosives, which were looted and are being used in IEDs; blame the troops on the ground for permitting the looting of Iraq's infrastracture following the invasion; blame the enlisted "night shift" for prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib; blame the troops on the ground for their actions in turbulent "free fire zones" that are created by our aimless policy;...

I ended my last screed with a question regarding the skewed impressions our troops hold regarding the reasons for this war (i.e. Saddam attacked us on 9/11"). Where do those mistaken ideas come from?

And finally, another non sequitur question: Why is it that everyone we fight used to worek for the CIA? Ho Chi Mihn (a bona fide OSS agent during the Japanese occupation of his country during WWII) Noriega, Osama, and Saddam were all trainied and funded creatures of our foreign policy. Does this inspire confidence?

# Posted by wwmfjd at 06/29/2006 07:58 am - reply- forum

Subject: Vietnam
Dear wwmfjd:

The Vietnam Conflict was worth fighting, despite the nonsense promoted by the American left ... and those who eschewed fighting. The ideas behind the conflict were accurate. And, despite the promulgations of the American Left in order to buttress their lack of courage, we won the conflict in 1974. Unfortunately, the South Vietnamese Regime unilaterally-chose to invade North Vietnam in 1975. When the United States refused to support their unilateral aggression, the entire country fell as South Vietnamese troops quickly defected to the North.

The unpalatable aspect of the Vietnam Conflict was the Johnson Administration's willingness to allow the Jewish-American-led protest movement unbridled access to the media in order to spread their cowardly messages. The media was wrong to promote a defeatist attitude then in Vietnam, and they are wrong now to promote similarly about Iraq. The other unfortunate issue was the ability of affluence to steer their offspring away from military service, yet develop a mechanism with which they could succeed later on in life. Naturally, this mechanism was championed by all the affluent class, since they all dodged military service. And, let us face it, so may young Americans in the 1960s were entrained into the protest movement (free sex, drugs, etc.) that it evolved into a solidarity of cowardice that continues to this day. Leaders from all walks of life cannot cope with ex-military. The ex-military personnel are a constant reminded that, deep down, these leaders chickened out on Vietnam.

Let me rephrase: the Vietnam Conflict was the correct move in order to check the spread of communism. Yes, young Americans were going to die. However, it was our generation's time to anti-up. Unfortunately, many young Americans, bathed in affluence, chose to chicken out. That is the bottom line: You have those who filled the lines, and those who ran away. Naturally, an outpouring of sympathy inundated the political sphere in order to protect the wayward ways of the children of afluence. Ultimately, it was decided that it was OK to be a coward in America ... you could still grow to be President!

Reflecting on your comments, referring to betrayal of our troops, I could not agree more. The same cowardice that permeates the Liberal Left infest many of our senior officers. A senior officer with aspiration of a star will play the Liberal Left game to the point that high-school-educated soldier in the field requires the mental accuracy of a successful Jewish-American lawyer in a courtroom in his decisions, under fire, with an M-16. Ludicrous! Yet, what more can we expect from a generation of individuals lacking the experience of military service? The soldier in the field is being criticized so that the politician can mask his own cowardice and incompetence. The same holds true for the senior office who denigrates the soldier in the field in favor of advancement from the incompetent and cowardly politician.

By creating an all volunteer force, we have, likewise, created, as a by-product, an incompetent executive branch, desirous of some form of self-respect for dodging military service.

Yes, we have self-serving individuals in the military. But, I believe, for the most part, the other officers, where possible, move to eliminate as many of them from the ranks as possible. You have to experience the military to appreciate the esprit de corps. Politicians are a problem. Hitting them on the cowardice issue usually shuts them up.

I should mention that an all volunteer force creates a professional force that is lacking in a conscript force. An all volunteer force, with respect to efficiency and professionalism, far exceeds the expectations of a conscript force. We were not altogether wrong in opting for an all volunteer force.

With Aloha,

# Posted by harry at 06/29/2006 09:13 am - reply- forum

Subject: Protesters
To All:

In a realted matter, this Letter to the Editor reveals the feelings of those who filled the lines during the Vietnam Conflict about those who ran away:

http://starbulletin.com/2006/07/02/editorial/letters.html

Protesters learned nothing from past
Last Tuesday I was on my way into town and I was rather shocked and saddened to see Kona's own contingent of Cindy Sheehan wannabes marching along the Queen Kaahumanu extension, making a spectacle of themselves and causing dangerous traffic distractions in their efforts to demonstrate their disloyalty as misguided Americans (Star-Bulletin, June 28). I was struck by the absence of the U.S. flag .

As I went on about my business I was consumed with thoughts of how these individuals were echoes from another era -- the Vietnam War era. Back then , their predecessors made sure their voices were heard loud and clear throughout this land, and finally when in 1975 and the fall of Saigon and Phnom Penh came they achieved their long-held goal of seeing zero American assistance or further involvement in Southeast Asia.

I imagine most went smugly back to their communes to smoke pot and enjoy free love while Cambodians were being frog-marched out of every town and city to death camps that resulted in the demise of more than 2 million. Even now, 30 years later, this has left a people, a culture and and a country reeling from the horrendous impact of that betrayal. In Vietnam, we can only guess how many people perished on the high seas seeking to escape the communist takeover, or how many died and were buried in shallow graves in countless jungle re-education camps throughout that sad land.

As bad as that was then, if America pulls up and runs away from its commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the resulting bloodbath will make Southeast Asia look like a walk in the park. Those marchers are willing to sacrifice U.S. strategic interests, to endanger the entire Moslem world by abandoning it to the rabid and radical extremists who love to cut off heads with dull knives and whose long-term agenda is to see the entire world ruled and controlled by strict Shariah-based Wahabbist Islam.

The Kona protesters are a disgrace to our community and an insult to our military folks who are putting their young lives on the line for us every day.

Harley Earl
Kealakekua, Hawai

Comments: Kona is one of the two major cites on the Big Island of Hawaii. Second, the tally was over three million murdered in the Killing Fields of Cambodia for their scant association with Western ways.

The author of the letter fails to mention how the protesters and their media allies simply disregarded the mass murders that they set in motion from their detrimental activities. Yes, they saved their lives from having to fill the lines at the expense of millions ... truly, millions ... of Southeast Asians' lives. At no time do the protest movement leaders ... mostly Jewish-Americans ... take responsibility for the massacres of millions in Southeast Asia. They couldn't care less. They saved their skins, and that is all that matters. Now, through their solidarity of cowardice, they suppress any effort to expose their guilt (shame) from their behavior that sentenced millions to summary execution.

The author of the letter is correct. Those who march in protest are ignorant of history and oblivious to their own cowardice.

With Aloha,

# Posted by harry at 07/02/2006 09:19 am - reply- forum

Post a comment

Log in (or Register - it's easy) view ;