New York Times joins Al-Qaeda terror network
It seems like every major journalism scandal concerned with President Bush's War on Terror and the conflict in Iraq swirls around the name of The New York Times. In their latest round of irresponsible journalism, the Times apparently feel they know more about how to conduct international financial surveilance than do the government agencies and offices charged with the task; but that's not all, the Times also knows better than everyone else that publishing proposed troop drawdown timelines won't in any way help or encourage the militant groups inciting the instability in Iraq.
What good is it going to do if we leave Iraq according to a predictable time table, allowing militant groups to stand down and regroup, biding their time for another opportunity to launch a rebellion against the new Iraqi government?
While I have said in the past that the United States might have accomplished more by openly proclaiming to the insurgents, "Hey, dudes, as soon as you lay down your weapons, we're outta here!" -- the truth is that the ship has sailed. They would see such a concession as nothing more than admitting defeat, and they won't do that no matter how many innocent Iraqi women and children they have to murder to avoid doing so.
But we've managed to redirect Al Qaeda's fire away from the United States. While the moral and ethical issues of this strategy have been largely overlooked by the anti-war movement, the fact is that Al Qaeda's war kittens have literally thrown themselves into Iraq for the past four years years, where many of them have been killed, wasting their lives and energies in a useless, pointless dispute that has made them contemptible to both the Iraqi people and many Arab and Muslim communities around the world.
The Iraqi conflict will one day be recognized as a slaughter-house for Al Qaeda supporters, sympthazirs, and believers who are obviously too stupid to realize they aren't doing a thing to harm America when they attack Muslim Arabs in the streets, schools, and mosques of the Middle East.
However, as regrettable and unfortunate as the isolate-and-destroy strategy truly is (it will, in the long-run, only serve to make America look more cold-blooded and heartless than we already do), the strategy has been working. And here you have the obviously anti-war New York Times dredging up every piece of intelligence it can uncover on how the Bush Administration is managing the War on Terror. They might as well be slipping confidential briefings to the terrorists. The American public's interests are not being served by this kind of sloppy, irresponsible pap that is really only feeding the fires of political activism.
Here in America we like to pick on Al-Jazeera for being openly sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist causes. Even when Al Qaeda's leaders have nothing newsworthy to say, Al-Jazeera makes sure their voices are heard and does its best to represent them as a credible, sustainable Jihadist force capable of conquering and ruling the world.
That is the ultimate goal of Jihadism, at its crudest. Everyone who doesn't convert to Islam has to die. It's a despicable, inhumane point of view renounced by many Muslim scholars, but it is the whole point behind Al Qaeda.
And yet The New York Times knows better. Clearly, this is just a personal conflict between Bush and Osama Bin Laden, and the Times wants the American people to understand that we have no vested interest in maintaining some sort of secrecy around our government's strategies. After all, the terrorists are too stupid to pick up a copy of the newspaper and find out what the government is doing.
Ultimately, the irresponsibility lies with the American people. We won't lose our constitutional rights by working together to win a war. We proved that much was so during the 1940s. Many Americans put up with greater hardship and deprivation than we have today, and they didn't have to weave their ways through the maze of political correctness that has grown up since the 1960s.
Maybe not every war is just, but we didn't invite this war. Osama Bin Laden took it upon himself to initiate the war when we sent troops to Saudi Arabia to fulfill our treaty agreement to defend and protect them against a threat of invasion from Iraq. That treaty, negotiated many decades ago, remains in force today. Our best chance of removing our forces from the Persian Gulf region permanently is to help nurture a stable, capable Iraqi government.
The task is made much more difficult by brainless twits sitting behind desks in New York who think it's just another reasonable excuse to promote personal politics and sell newspapers. There is nothing reasonable about unnecessarily and irresponsibly giving the enemy the means to prolong and possibly even render meaningless the entire conflict.
The Times is in more desperate need of new leadership than any cheap ragsheet in history.
What good is it going to do if we leave Iraq according to a predictable time table, allowing militant groups to stand down and regroup, biding their time for another opportunity to launch a rebellion against the new Iraqi government?
While I have said in the past that the United States might have accomplished more by openly proclaiming to the insurgents, "Hey, dudes, as soon as you lay down your weapons, we're outta here!" -- the truth is that the ship has sailed. They would see such a concession as nothing more than admitting defeat, and they won't do that no matter how many innocent Iraqi women and children they have to murder to avoid doing so.
But we've managed to redirect Al Qaeda's fire away from the United States. While the moral and ethical issues of this strategy have been largely overlooked by the anti-war movement, the fact is that Al Qaeda's war kittens have literally thrown themselves into Iraq for the past four years years, where many of them have been killed, wasting their lives and energies in a useless, pointless dispute that has made them contemptible to both the Iraqi people and many Arab and Muslim communities around the world.
The Iraqi conflict will one day be recognized as a slaughter-house for Al Qaeda supporters, sympthazirs, and believers who are obviously too stupid to realize they aren't doing a thing to harm America when they attack Muslim Arabs in the streets, schools, and mosques of the Middle East.
However, as regrettable and unfortunate as the isolate-and-destroy strategy truly is (it will, in the long-run, only serve to make America look more cold-blooded and heartless than we already do), the strategy has been working. And here you have the obviously anti-war New York Times dredging up every piece of intelligence it can uncover on how the Bush Administration is managing the War on Terror. They might as well be slipping confidential briefings to the terrorists. The American public's interests are not being served by this kind of sloppy, irresponsible pap that is really only feeding the fires of political activism.
Here in America we like to pick on Al-Jazeera for being openly sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist causes. Even when Al Qaeda's leaders have nothing newsworthy to say, Al-Jazeera makes sure their voices are heard and does its best to represent them as a credible, sustainable Jihadist force capable of conquering and ruling the world.
That is the ultimate goal of Jihadism, at its crudest. Everyone who doesn't convert to Islam has to die. It's a despicable, inhumane point of view renounced by many Muslim scholars, but it is the whole point behind Al Qaeda.
And yet The New York Times knows better. Clearly, this is just a personal conflict between Bush and Osama Bin Laden, and the Times wants the American people to understand that we have no vested interest in maintaining some sort of secrecy around our government's strategies. After all, the terrorists are too stupid to pick up a copy of the newspaper and find out what the government is doing.
Ultimately, the irresponsibility lies with the American people. We won't lose our constitutional rights by working together to win a war. We proved that much was so during the 1940s. Many Americans put up with greater hardship and deprivation than we have today, and they didn't have to weave their ways through the maze of political correctness that has grown up since the 1960s.
Maybe not every war is just, but we didn't invite this war. Osama Bin Laden took it upon himself to initiate the war when we sent troops to Saudi Arabia to fulfill our treaty agreement to defend and protect them against a threat of invasion from Iraq. That treaty, negotiated many decades ago, remains in force today. Our best chance of removing our forces from the Persian Gulf region permanently is to help nurture a stable, capable Iraqi government.
The task is made much more difficult by brainless twits sitting behind desks in New York who think it's just another reasonable excuse to promote personal politics and sell newspapers. There is nothing reasonable about unnecessarily and irresponsibly giving the enemy the means to prolong and possibly even render meaningless the entire conflict.
The Times is in more desperate need of new leadership than any cheap ragsheet in history.
posted by Michael Martinez at 1:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home