Posts Tagged ‘War on Terror’

Jay Nordlinger’s new column starts with this phrase:

I know that “Journolist” has been mightily picked over — and picked on …

Ah Jay it all depends on the audiance. If you get your information from the main stream media, the mainstream TV networks and cable networks (excluding Fox) not only has Journolist not been “picked over” it has barely been touched.

Ironically Nordlinger touches on that very thing with his first remark:

Bob Novak used to say, ‘That’s the line” — he said it with dismissive contempt. Someone else, usually on the left, would make some excuse or give some talking point, and Novak’d say, “That’s the line.” I can just hear him.

And reminds us of a line that we heard often during the election:

Some people thought that the Left would calm down, with the election of Barack Obama as president. They are now in charge. It should be okay to fight, or at least appreciate, the War on Terror (as we used to call it). (Obama and his people prefer “overseas contingency operations.”) But the Left seems as hepped up as ever.

Why? Not because they were against George Bush, (they were) but because they were and always have been (as Glenn Reynolds has always said) on the other side.

And make sure you look at all the Instapundit links there. The left may want to forget them but I sure not going to.

Do the words: Blood on their hands ring a bell?

In an interview with Channel 4 News, Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said they were studying and investigating the report, adding “If they are US spies, then we know how to punish them.”

This brought to mind something, twenty five years ago just out of college I started at Raytheon. In the list of document that had to be filled out when at my hire was one that caught my eye.

It was a list of offensives that made you subject to death or such lesser penalty as the law would allow.

When you’re 21 it’s really heady stuff to read that there are things you can do on the job that can get you executed. Of course I wasn’t planning to give classified info to the soviets in the middle of the cold war, but it was a sobering thing to read.

As I remember when the media convicted Richard Jewel I’m going to withhold judgment for now on the soldier who is being named in the media, but if an employee at a defense plant is aware that treason carries a possible death penalty how much more should a soldier, particularly during wartime?

If it is proved this or any soldier was complicit in the leaks, such an act that’s as clear a case of treason as there is.

And now it appears that those helping us will now pay for their support of America with their lives.

If this doesn’t warrant a firing squad I don’t know what does.

Memeorandum thread here.

Our next contestant is Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul of the Pakistani army. His topic the bleeding obvious:

described the documents’ release as the start of a White House plot. It will end, he posited, with an early U.S. pullout from Afghanistan — thus proving Gul, an unabashed advocate of the Afghan insurgency, right.

President Obama “is a very good chess player. . . . He says, ‘I don’t want to carry the historic blame of having orchestrated the defeat of America, their humiliation in Afghanistan,’ ”

Here Gul, 74 shows himself a little less knowledgeable than he thinks. The Wikileaks stuff isn’t part of a administration plot, but the media, the left and anti-victory members of the administration will use it to their advantage.

Let me repeat, the goal is to engineer withdrawal and political defeat before Petraeus manages to engineer victory.

I’m sure that such a defeat will have no chance of emboldening the forces of Jihad all over the world. There is absolutely no chance that the next Osama Bin Ladin will be able to convince radical Islamists that there is no danger in opposing the US or in hitting America again. Once we stop fighting Jihad I’m sure those trying to push Sharia all over the world will decide we are friends and stop.

One word of advice: make sure you don’t drive after drinking whatever the people who actually believe that nonsense are.

Why is this so confusing? Let me answer you:

1. Preventing Afghanistan from being used as a forward base for terror.

2. Neutralizing the Taliban as an effective fighting force.

Why is it so hard to understand that?

The Morning Joe crew has one good point. You don’t win a war simply by throwing more troops at it you win a war by having a smart stratagy to win it and the right leaders and tactics to do so.

Anybody who thinks the US military can’t win in Afghanistan is an idiot, but it’s more than that. The president in one of he few really good moves has put Petraeus in charge over there. There reason you see the Wikileaks and the push against the Afghan war now just as the strategy has changed is not because the left is afraid of losing this war, its because the left is afraid we will win it.

Expect more of this meme, in their minds the battle cry is “Stop Petraeus before he wins again!”