thedrifter
12-05-05, 07:45 AM
Enemy Press
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 5, 2005
This is a war. You can be unhappy about it and sit it out. That's ok. That's what a democracy is about. You're right to dissent. You can criticize the war and vote for another government that will leave the field of battle. That's ok too. That's also what a democracy about. But while an elected government and the young men and women it sends into battle are engaged with a ruthless enemy in the field, you can't work to cripple their efforts , or do the work of the enemy side and expect the rest of us not to regard you as a saboteur and a Judas and an enemy within.
These thoughts are provoked by the lead story in Saturday's Los Angeles Times and then by a missing lead in the paper the next day. On Saturday the lead story headline in the Times was "Bomb Kills 10 Marines At Fallouja." What kind of a lead story is this? We're in a war. What's the big news that ten soldiers have died? And by one roadside bomb? It could happen any day -- even on the last of a war before a peace. There is no story. This is hardly news. It's like running a headline that today 110 people were killed in car accidents. Actually that's a fact (or a ballpark fact -- if 55,000 Americans die every year from car wrecks). But no one writes headlines about it because it's not news. It's life as we know it. As long as there are millions of cars on the roads and they're driven by people like us, there are going to be accidents and deaths. So too with war.
The only reason the Times ran the commonplace death of a few soldiers in war as its lead story is that the Times' editors want America to cut and run from the battle for Iraqi freedom and let the Zarqawi terrorists take over the country. So they are conducting their own psychological warfare campaign against the war. Just what the enemy would do if it had the means. I don't care if you call this treason or not. What it undeniably is is a pscyhological warfare campaign which the terrorists would conduct themselves if they had the means to do it.
Terror is about inflicting enough pain on free societies so that they willsurrender without a fight. If America's pain threshold is lowered enough, the terrorists will win in Iraq by default. And then they will come after Americans here at home with Iraq's oil billions behind them and the chemical and biological and eventually nuclear weapons they are desperately seeking in hand. Is this what the Times wants? Or perhaps the Times editors are so delusional they think the way John Kerry does -- that we are responsible for creating the terrorists. That they wouldn't exist if we weren't in their face. But of course we weren't in their face on 9/11 -- thanks to Bill Clinton and Al Gore. And that was the problem.
On Sunday the Los Angeles Times lead story was again about Iraq: "Private Security Guards In Iraq Operate With Little Supervision." This was not a big story either, but it was also a negative one and so it was the Times' editors choice for a lead. It would sap Americans' will to fight. It would increase their weariness with the problems of the war.
But there was another Iraq story on Sunday that the Times' editors pushed to page 3. The headline for this story was; "Senior Leader of Al Qaeda Is Killed in Blast." Actually it was the number 3 leader of Al Qaeda after bin Laden and Zawahiri. This was big news -- or should have been big news for people who think that the war in Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror. And of course it was big news for them which is why they attempted to bury it on page 3 instead of leading with it on page 1. Because in addition to opposing an American war for freedom, the Times editors are dishonest journalists and relentlessly subordinate reporting of the facts to arranging their reports to serve their political agendas.
No sooner had the Times story about the killing of Al-Qaeda's number 3 covered the details of the event, moreover, than its writers sought to diminish the significance of that event. "[Unamed] experts cautioned that the killing was likely to have a limited effect because Al Qaeda is less a hierarchchical organization and more a movement that can carry out missions without directions from top leaders." Oh, like 9/11.
What this malicious subterfusion conceals is the fact that while the Los Angeles Times and the Democratic leadership were busily sabotaging the American war on terror, the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team was destroying Al-Qaeda as we knew it. Yes, today Al-Qaeda may be a decentralized collection of local terrorist cells, as the Times claims. But that is because America has taken the offensive, killed Al-Qaeda's leaders and driven them into hiding, destroyed much of its infrastructure and reduced its capabilities so dramatically that the United States has been safe from terrorist attack for more than four years.
Thank you George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the thousands of men and women under arms who have had to fight a war against a ruthless enemy with half the country either on the sidelines or actively stabbing them in the back.
Ellie
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 5, 2005
This is a war. You can be unhappy about it and sit it out. That's ok. That's what a democracy is about. You're right to dissent. You can criticize the war and vote for another government that will leave the field of battle. That's ok too. That's also what a democracy about. But while an elected government and the young men and women it sends into battle are engaged with a ruthless enemy in the field, you can't work to cripple their efforts , or do the work of the enemy side and expect the rest of us not to regard you as a saboteur and a Judas and an enemy within.
These thoughts are provoked by the lead story in Saturday's Los Angeles Times and then by a missing lead in the paper the next day. On Saturday the lead story headline in the Times was "Bomb Kills 10 Marines At Fallouja." What kind of a lead story is this? We're in a war. What's the big news that ten soldiers have died? And by one roadside bomb? It could happen any day -- even on the last of a war before a peace. There is no story. This is hardly news. It's like running a headline that today 110 people were killed in car accidents. Actually that's a fact (or a ballpark fact -- if 55,000 Americans die every year from car wrecks). But no one writes headlines about it because it's not news. It's life as we know it. As long as there are millions of cars on the roads and they're driven by people like us, there are going to be accidents and deaths. So too with war.
The only reason the Times ran the commonplace death of a few soldiers in war as its lead story is that the Times' editors want America to cut and run from the battle for Iraqi freedom and let the Zarqawi terrorists take over the country. So they are conducting their own psychological warfare campaign against the war. Just what the enemy would do if it had the means. I don't care if you call this treason or not. What it undeniably is is a pscyhological warfare campaign which the terrorists would conduct themselves if they had the means to do it.
Terror is about inflicting enough pain on free societies so that they willsurrender without a fight. If America's pain threshold is lowered enough, the terrorists will win in Iraq by default. And then they will come after Americans here at home with Iraq's oil billions behind them and the chemical and biological and eventually nuclear weapons they are desperately seeking in hand. Is this what the Times wants? Or perhaps the Times editors are so delusional they think the way John Kerry does -- that we are responsible for creating the terrorists. That they wouldn't exist if we weren't in their face. But of course we weren't in their face on 9/11 -- thanks to Bill Clinton and Al Gore. And that was the problem.
On Sunday the Los Angeles Times lead story was again about Iraq: "Private Security Guards In Iraq Operate With Little Supervision." This was not a big story either, but it was also a negative one and so it was the Times' editors choice for a lead. It would sap Americans' will to fight. It would increase their weariness with the problems of the war.
But there was another Iraq story on Sunday that the Times' editors pushed to page 3. The headline for this story was; "Senior Leader of Al Qaeda Is Killed in Blast." Actually it was the number 3 leader of Al Qaeda after bin Laden and Zawahiri. This was big news -- or should have been big news for people who think that the war in Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror. And of course it was big news for them which is why they attempted to bury it on page 3 instead of leading with it on page 1. Because in addition to opposing an American war for freedom, the Times editors are dishonest journalists and relentlessly subordinate reporting of the facts to arranging their reports to serve their political agendas.
No sooner had the Times story about the killing of Al-Qaeda's number 3 covered the details of the event, moreover, than its writers sought to diminish the significance of that event. "[Unamed] experts cautioned that the killing was likely to have a limited effect because Al Qaeda is less a hierarchchical organization and more a movement that can carry out missions without directions from top leaders." Oh, like 9/11.
What this malicious subterfusion conceals is the fact that while the Los Angeles Times and the Democratic leadership were busily sabotaging the American war on terror, the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team was destroying Al-Qaeda as we knew it. Yes, today Al-Qaeda may be a decentralized collection of local terrorist cells, as the Times claims. But that is because America has taken the offensive, killed Al-Qaeda's leaders and driven them into hiding, destroyed much of its infrastructure and reduced its capabilities so dramatically that the United States has been safe from terrorist attack for more than four years.
Thank you George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the thousands of men and women under arms who have had to fight a war against a ruthless enemy with half the country either on the sidelines or actively stabbing them in the back.
Ellie