thedrifter
01-18-05, 06:02 AM
Terrorists, Tribunals, and Media Tribulations
January 17, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Michael P. Tremoglie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is absolutely unconscionable that Democrats – and their media myrmidons - are once again trying to fabricate a scandal about a debatable issue concerning the Global War on Terror (GWOT). Ironically, this most recent allegation contains many of the same elements that liberals routinely use when vilifying law enforcement.
There has been much purported angst – primarily although not exclusively by liberal Democrats - about the civil rights of those captured by our military and imprisoned for being Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Baathists and Iraqi soldiers. Their purpose is to try to discredit the Bush administration.
This attempt is illustrated by a letter sent last June, by some House Democrats, requesting information from the White House about interrogation procedures at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and other prisons. The letter, signed by Henry Waxman, John Conyers and others, stated unequivocally that, “We are writing to inform you of our determination to investigate the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere and to request your assistance in obtaining key documents.” Indeed, Democrats have been attempting to prove that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were the result of direct orders from the White House.
Democratic Party media shills such as Chris Matthews - especially Chris Matthews – long have been trying to promote the bizarre conspiracy theory that VP Cheney ordered torture to obtain information from prisoners. Previously, Matthews wanted to prove that Cheney falsified intelligence to justify invading Iraq. He has also endorsed the “Neocon Conspiracy.”
Attorney General designate Alberto Gonzales is the latest victim of the Democratic Party scandal factory. Democratic Senators used the confirmation of Gonzales for Attorney General to accuse Gonzales, as legal counsel for the president, of the formation of torture policy about prisoners. They used him as a proxy for Bush.
Democrats and media liberals have been trying to make the policy toward prisoners controversial from the beginning.
The main issue concerns the status of prisoners. Some of them – especially the Al-Qaeda prisoners - are not accorded POW status because they are not regular army soldiers or even militia. They do not wear a distinctive uniform nor have other characteristics of POW’s. They are terrorists. Since they are terrorists, the question then becomes how should they be treated. More important to the Democrats is what can be done to interrogate them.
The Supreme Court determined last June that the President does have the authority to order the imprisonment of Al-Qaeda. Even international civilrigths organizations have stated that Al-Qaeda do not qualify for POW status because they do not have the qualifications of military personnel.
Military personnel it must be mentioned wear uniforms or distinctive badges and do not conceal their purpose. In other words you can tell who they are and kill them from miles away. They place themselves at risk because they declare by their uniform who they are. This is why they have certain rights as POW’s.
Yet, these concepts are difficult for antiwar liberals like Chris Matthews to comprehend. He does not think that Iraqi “insurgents” should be considered terrorists. During his January 5 broadcast, he asked Boyden Gray, former senior White House counsel to the first President Bush, if an Iraqi with an AK47 is a terrorist.
Then he asked Gray something even more bizarre and revealing of his true mentality, “Suppose a person in Iraq just doesn‘t want us there and they start shooting us in the street. Is that a terrorist? “
This is a classic example of the mentality of Matthews and those who think as he does. Matthews implies that people in Iraq, who are not members of an army or militia, are just patriots defending their country.
This attitude is very similar to the attitude of those who protested the Vietnam War and favored the Viet Cong. They wrote encomiums about the Viet Cong. They considered them patriots and the South Vietnamese army traitors. They conveniently forgot the terrorist activities of the Viet Cong and their genocidal policies after the war.
Matthews forgets that the people in Iraq who explode Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s), killing innocent civilians, are not patriots.
Matthews forgets that the people in Iraq who are engaging in the mass summary executions of Iraqi cops are not Iraqi patriots.
Matthews forgets that the people in Iraq who are warning Iraqi citizens that if they attempt to vote, snipers stationed near polls will kill them, are not Iraqi patriots.
Matthews forgets that the people in Iraq who are telling the Iraqi people that democracy “ is an apostasy” that leads to “un-Islamic laws,” are not Iraqi patriots.
Even more revealing of Matthews’ attitude toward the courageous patriotic Iraqis who are trying to bring democracy to Iraq is his comment, “To be an insurgent, don‘t you have to have a legitimate government you‘re insurgent against? “
This divulges the contempt that Matthews, and those like him, have towards the Iraqi cops ands soldiers who are murdered. They are not from a legitimate government. They are merely puppets of an occupying power. They are collaborators, modern Quislings.
Matthews forgets that the people he considers traitors are the people who are trying to bring democracy, civil rights, and liberty to Iraq. The ones killing them want to reinstate a tyrannical genocidal government.
Of course, this is how liberals thought about the South Vietnamese military - and what they have always thought about cops and the American military. Liberals like Matthews, always think cops are the criminals, criminals are the victims, and the victims are just stupid.
Matthews’ patronizing attitude towards the American soldier is disclosed when during another show he asked, “where did they (the Abu Ghraib prison guards) get the leashes and the dog collars… They’re not writers.” Apparently, the average soldier is not sufficiently intelligent to know where to get dog leashes.
Who supplied the dog leashes has been a constant refrain of Matthews since the Abu Ghraib scandal began. In his world the leashes prove that intelligence people supplied the prison guards with this equipment. Ergo, this was ordered by someone from the Defense Department.
If Matthews knew anything about this scandal, if Matthews even watched his own network, he would see at least one photo of a guard with a German Shepherd. This indicates that there is a K-9 unit at Abu Ghraib. This would be the source of the leashes.
Is it any wonder that no one takes the mainstream media seriously? They are not only biased, they are incompetent.
Michael Tremoglie
Ellie
January 17, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Michael P. Tremoglie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is absolutely unconscionable that Democrats – and their media myrmidons - are once again trying to fabricate a scandal about a debatable issue concerning the Global War on Terror (GWOT). Ironically, this most recent allegation contains many of the same elements that liberals routinely use when vilifying law enforcement.
There has been much purported angst – primarily although not exclusively by liberal Democrats - about the civil rights of those captured by our military and imprisoned for being Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Baathists and Iraqi soldiers. Their purpose is to try to discredit the Bush administration.
This attempt is illustrated by a letter sent last June, by some House Democrats, requesting information from the White House about interrogation procedures at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and other prisons. The letter, signed by Henry Waxman, John Conyers and others, stated unequivocally that, “We are writing to inform you of our determination to investigate the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere and to request your assistance in obtaining key documents.” Indeed, Democrats have been attempting to prove that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were the result of direct orders from the White House.
Democratic Party media shills such as Chris Matthews - especially Chris Matthews – long have been trying to promote the bizarre conspiracy theory that VP Cheney ordered torture to obtain information from prisoners. Previously, Matthews wanted to prove that Cheney falsified intelligence to justify invading Iraq. He has also endorsed the “Neocon Conspiracy.”
Attorney General designate Alberto Gonzales is the latest victim of the Democratic Party scandal factory. Democratic Senators used the confirmation of Gonzales for Attorney General to accuse Gonzales, as legal counsel for the president, of the formation of torture policy about prisoners. They used him as a proxy for Bush.
Democrats and media liberals have been trying to make the policy toward prisoners controversial from the beginning.
The main issue concerns the status of prisoners. Some of them – especially the Al-Qaeda prisoners - are not accorded POW status because they are not regular army soldiers or even militia. They do not wear a distinctive uniform nor have other characteristics of POW’s. They are terrorists. Since they are terrorists, the question then becomes how should they be treated. More important to the Democrats is what can be done to interrogate them.
The Supreme Court determined last June that the President does have the authority to order the imprisonment of Al-Qaeda. Even international civilrigths organizations have stated that Al-Qaeda do not qualify for POW status because they do not have the qualifications of military personnel.
Military personnel it must be mentioned wear uniforms or distinctive badges and do not conceal their purpose. In other words you can tell who they are and kill them from miles away. They place themselves at risk because they declare by their uniform who they are. This is why they have certain rights as POW’s.
Yet, these concepts are difficult for antiwar liberals like Chris Matthews to comprehend. He does not think that Iraqi “insurgents” should be considered terrorists. During his January 5 broadcast, he asked Boyden Gray, former senior White House counsel to the first President Bush, if an Iraqi with an AK47 is a terrorist.
Then he asked Gray something even more bizarre and revealing of his true mentality, “Suppose a person in Iraq just doesn‘t want us there and they start shooting us in the street. Is that a terrorist? “
This is a classic example of the mentality of Matthews and those who think as he does. Matthews implies that people in Iraq, who are not members of an army or militia, are just patriots defending their country.
This attitude is very similar to the attitude of those who protested the Vietnam War and favored the Viet Cong. They wrote encomiums about the Viet Cong. They considered them patriots and the South Vietnamese army traitors. They conveniently forgot the terrorist activities of the Viet Cong and their genocidal policies after the war.
Matthews forgets that the people in Iraq who explode Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s), killing innocent civilians, are not patriots.
Matthews forgets that the people in Iraq who are engaging in the mass summary executions of Iraqi cops are not Iraqi patriots.
Matthews forgets that the people in Iraq who are warning Iraqi citizens that if they attempt to vote, snipers stationed near polls will kill them, are not Iraqi patriots.
Matthews forgets that the people in Iraq who are telling the Iraqi people that democracy “ is an apostasy” that leads to “un-Islamic laws,” are not Iraqi patriots.
Even more revealing of Matthews’ attitude toward the courageous patriotic Iraqis who are trying to bring democracy to Iraq is his comment, “To be an insurgent, don‘t you have to have a legitimate government you‘re insurgent against? “
This divulges the contempt that Matthews, and those like him, have towards the Iraqi cops ands soldiers who are murdered. They are not from a legitimate government. They are merely puppets of an occupying power. They are collaborators, modern Quislings.
Matthews forgets that the people he considers traitors are the people who are trying to bring democracy, civil rights, and liberty to Iraq. The ones killing them want to reinstate a tyrannical genocidal government.
Of course, this is how liberals thought about the South Vietnamese military - and what they have always thought about cops and the American military. Liberals like Matthews, always think cops are the criminals, criminals are the victims, and the victims are just stupid.
Matthews’ patronizing attitude towards the American soldier is disclosed when during another show he asked, “where did they (the Abu Ghraib prison guards) get the leashes and the dog collars… They’re not writers.” Apparently, the average soldier is not sufficiently intelligent to know where to get dog leashes.
Who supplied the dog leashes has been a constant refrain of Matthews since the Abu Ghraib scandal began. In his world the leashes prove that intelligence people supplied the prison guards with this equipment. Ergo, this was ordered by someone from the Defense Department.
If Matthews knew anything about this scandal, if Matthews even watched his own network, he would see at least one photo of a guard with a German Shepherd. This indicates that there is a K-9 unit at Abu Ghraib. This would be the source of the leashes.
Is it any wonder that no one takes the mainstream media seriously? They are not only biased, they are incompetent.
Michael Tremoglie
Ellie