Squiggler

How do you spell hypocrite?

C-i-n-d-y S-h-e-e-h-a-n.

Perhaps you heard that Mother Moonbat and her minions are fasting. Well, to be accurate, her minions are rolling fasting. Huh? you ask? That's right, a rolling fast ... I fast today and throw it to you and the fast rolls along with you fasting on Day 2 and then you roll it over to the next minionite. Cindy, on the other hand, claims to be in Day Six of her personal  "Troops Home Fast." She describes the hardships of her fast while traveling and vacationing in Venice:

I find traveling out of the country very challenging being on a fast. When I was on a layover in Madrid on my way to Venice, Italy yesterday, the closest thing I could find to a smoothie to get a little protein was a coffee with vanilla ice cream in it. Traveling for 22 hours is very taxing under normal circumstances--but then again, when have we had normal circumstances since the 2000 and 2004 successful coup attempts that have brought BushCo into power?

I traveled from Venice to the frontier of Italy to the province of Udine which is right at the foot of the pre-Alps. I am here for a huge youth festival which includes many elements of social justice and peace work. It is beautiful and the air feels different from other places that I have travelled. It is strangely soft and gentle as is the natural light. However, there is not a Jamba Juice on every corner, so blended juice drinks with protein powder are impossible to find.

So it is the rolling fast and the Cindy Sheehan "Troops Home ice cream, protein powder, Jamba juice, coffee, smoothie Fast." Is this woman really serious? Do I roll my eyes at her hypocrisy or just laugh my a$$  off at her stupidity at writing about the hardships of fasting without Jamba Juice on every corner?

Related:

Sweetness and Light

Smoothies? Ice cream? Protein powder?

That’s not fasting, or half of the women in California are fasting.

But I’m so glad to see Mother Sheehan’s scored another vacation in Europe from her son’s heroic death.

And for God’s sake, whatever you do, don’t say she is "enjoying" her tragedy.

Well, she is sure "enjoying" something.

All a Rovian plot, doncha' know?

I discovered a blog new to me today and have instantly fallen in like with it. A taste from their post entitled:

"The Sting," or "Your Netroots are Showing"; or "Lefty Wackos Eat Their Own", or "Is Kos a CIA Agent-Provocateur?"

But what if something wierd is going on? After contemplating all of the above, and recent news on the blogs, etc., one must consider all of the rumors going around that The Daily Kos blog is a Bush-CIA-RNC Nixonian construct designed to discredit the Democratic Party. Since all of the Rovian hallmarks are there, I suspect that it is likely, but I can't prove it.

Just think about it: you set up a couple of websites to get a million angry amateurs and mentally unstable kooks (many of them probably CIA junior staff guys and RNC junior staff folks having great fun posting and cheerleading, plus thousands of Christian right-wing extremist volunteers) to dig into the core of your opposition, and weaken it from within. What could be more Rovian? More devilishly ingenious and convoluted? And to hire a haute-nurdy ex-Army guy for cover... too clever to be an accident. Don't ya think?

I shall definitely be visiting them again, even their "About" page is clever and very funny.

How great is this?

I'm with Mark Tapscott on this one ... the blogosphere rocks ...

Age of Hooper was at the Code Pink tantrum outside the White House, and he got this terrific video as a group of kids, taking a tour of Washington DC for July 4th, encountered the Code Pink lunatics—who began singing an anti-American version of “God Bless America” (as “God Help America”) directly at the tour group, deliberately taunting them. It’s a thing of beauty to watch as the “red state” kids spontaneously break into “America the Beautiful,” and completely shut down the moonbats.

WATCH THE VIDEO HERE It will make your day!

I would hope in my dotage that if I was found to have put on a pink shirt and gone out in public to make a total ass of myself, that someone in my life would love me enough to stop me. Don't these moonbats have any family or friends who care about them? Pinkos! What a pathetic bunch these people are.

Related:

Hugo's Useful Idiot, Cindy Sheehan, Does Not Disappoint

How to stop the New York Times III ... First expose their lies!

For context, start with our previous post on this subject HERE.

In that post, I called for a multi-pronged approach to stopping the New York Times and other irresponsible media. And point three called for press credentials to be pulled:

Third, demand that our government, and most especially the White House, pull the press credentials for the New York Times and the LA Times too, if you believe them to be equally guilty. End all cooperation with them and all their media, no interviews, no credentials. Anyone meets with or talks to them, they lose their job or get demoted or counseled. Treat all contacts between their reporters and government officials as we would contacts with foreign agents.

I have also made the point that no approach would work where public outrage is the driving force without publicity so that the outraged public can find each other and join forces to get something done. So with that in mind, I could not be happier than I am right now to see a National Review editorial calling for the implementation of my Suggestion Three:

The New York Times is a recidivist offender in what has become a relentless effort to undermine the intelligence-gathering without which a war against embedded terrorists cannot be won. And it is an unrepentant offender. In a letter published over the weekend, Keller once again defended the newspaper’s editorial decision to run its TFTP story. Without any trace of perceiving the danger inherent in public officials’ compromising of national-security information (a matter that the Times frothed over when it came to the comparative trifle of Valerie Plame’s status as a CIA employee), Keller indicated that the Times would continue revealing such matters whenever it unilaterally decided that doing so was in the public interest.

The president should match this morning’s tough talk with concrete action. Publications such as the Times, which act irresponsibly when given access to secrets on which national security depends, should have their access to government reduced. Their press credentials should be withdrawn. Reporting is surely a right, but press credentials are a privilege. This kind of conduct ought not be rewarded with privileged access.

Moreover, the Justice Department must be more aggressive than it has been in investigating national-security leaks. While prosecution of the press for publishing information helpful to the enemy in wartime would be controversial, pursuit of the government officials who leak it is not. At the very least, members of the media who report such information must be made to understand that the government will no longer regard them as immune from questioning when it investigates the leakers. They should be compelled to reveal their sources, on pain of contempt. ... More 

With the President's outrage this morning, perhaps something will begin to happen:

Via Hot Air:

Video: Bush calls Times’s expose “disgraceful”

I haven’t seen him this angry … ever, really.  Maybe prosecutions aren’t that unlikely.

 The White House has a transcript.

My reaction was exactly the same as to Bush's anger. And I would add ... he is at his very best when he is angry!

But the President's anger pales next to Treasury Secretary, John W. Snow. (Letter to the Editors of The New York Times  by Treasury Secretary Snow) Talk about hot! Whew! He all but calls Bill Keller out to a duel and he does call him a liar: [emphasis mine]

Mr. Bill Keller, Managing Editor The New York Times 229 West 43rd Street New York, NY 10036

Dear Mr. Keller:

The New York Times' decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.

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.

You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.

Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the "public interest" in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.

What you've seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.

Sincerely,

[signed]

John W. Snow, Secretary

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Let's tell it like it really is. A job at the New York Times is the pinnacle for a reporter. I doubt there is a single working or retired reporter who hasn't drooled over the prospect of  getting a job there. So, to get any of them to speak out against the paper is a statement against interest in their minds. And the New York Times, with their cohorts of other massive media, whether the Washington Post or TV news, are the life-blood in a politician's mind. Get mentioned positively or negatively in the Times and it gets picked up by every TV and newspaper news department in the country via the wire services. So, it is with great risk (the way things stand right now) for a politician or government employee to speak against the big media. They can be vicious if they turn on you. They can be your best friend if you are one of their darlings.

The best way to combat this is to implement my First, Second, and Fifth suggestions:

First, stop linking to either paper. And most especially, stop linking to anything behind a "pay" wall such as Times Select.

Second, start demanding that major news outlets, especially TV cable news outlets, stop using the New York Times as their primary source for news. I'm sick of always hearing, "according to the New York Times," aren't you?

Fifth, find the quality newspapers and TV outlets that can move into the slots vacated by the NYT, the LA Times and dare I say it, the Wall Street Journal. If they are quality but have been struggling to make it against the big boys, throw the blogosphere weight behind them. Of course, I would like to see news outlets with a more libertarian or conservative bent get the nod, but partisanship should not be the criteria. Instead, make national security the criteria and make this a "citizen" issue rather than a political one.

My hope of seeing this happen on a scale of one to ten is about a four at this point.

This country is being torn apart by the traitors. The leakers are controlling a debate that is a false debate. We've got nearly half the electorate actually believing in the lie that "Bush lied so people died." I have grave reservations about how we as a people can take back this country and bring some sense back to those who have now been brainwashed for years with this skewed and disengenuous meme.

It is a constant battle, never more apparent than by some of these statements:

3.  Jane Hall, eternal defender of the MSM on the unwatchable Fox News Watch, says on Bill O'Reilly that we mustn't accuse the New York Times of anti-American or treasonous sentiments because reporters are risking their lives in Iraq.

2.  This absurdity by Bill Keller, defending his decision to reveal top national security secrets to the enemy:

Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.)

1.  Juan Williams claims the NYT did American national security a favor, by informing Al Qaeda we were watching their bank transfers, thus forcing them to seek other means of transfering money.

[READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE  ... it boggles the mind.]

And yes, Betsy, it is very infuriating:

What is so infuriating is that if Bill Keller had called up a terrorist from Al Qaeda and told them about this program, he'd have been guilty of treason. But if he publishes it on the front page where that same terrorist can read it along with all his terrorist buddies, there seems little that we can do to Bill Keller other than cancel subscriptions that, judging by the NYT's subscription numbers, many have already cancelled.

I'd like to see the Justice Department call these reporters and publishers before a Grand Jury to investigate who leaked this story to them. And when they refuse to answer, throw them in jail. At least they won't be receiving any leaks about our anti-terrorist efforts while they're there. If Judy Miller can go to jail for a story she never even wrote for a leak that Fitzgerald didn't even find was illegal, these guys can certainly warm a cell.

Captain Ed sums it all up rather nicely:

The inclusion of the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission is particularly telling. The Times urged the Bush administration to adopt the Commision recommendations in toto, parroting the Kerry campaign's demands after the publication of the Commission's final report. They considered the Commission's findings determinative, and brooked little dissent from the Bush administration when it hesitated to implement the entire set of recommendations. Now, however, Keller and Pinch Sulzberger finds them less than expert on matters of national security, and their efforts "half-hearted".

Well, one has to have a heart before one can put half of it into any effort, and as far as Keller has demonstrated, we lack evidence that he qualifies. His whiny excuse-making had already been rightly and roundly denounced as non-responsive. Now we know it was dishonest and misleading as well. The New York Times has descended rapidly into the mainstream media's equivalent of the Weekly World News. The Sulzbergers may want to rethink Pinch's oversight of the family business.

Related:

Just One Minute Tom Maguire, with tongue firmly planted in cheek opines:

Hmm.  At the CNN site, the story is this:

Keller said he knew of only three people outside of the administration who were asked by the administration to contact the paper -- Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton from the 9/11 commission, and Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha.

"Not all of them urged us not to publish," Keller said.

Keller, who was accused of arrogance by Snow, told CNN, "I think it would be arrogant of us to pre-empt the work of Congress and the courts by deciding on our own that these programs are perfectly legal and abuse-proof."

"We spent weeks listening to the administration's case," he said.

Well, I am glad the Times decided to pre-empt Congress by publishing their story rather than deferring to Congressional hearings, legislation, or, dare we say it, Congressional silence.

So does that mean one of the three did tell them to publish? Or, does it mean one expressed no opinion one way or the other? Which one? Where's the sunshine?

Leave it to Sweetness and Light Check out the date of this editorial in the NYT:

Finances of Terror

September 24, 2001, Monday
(NYT); Editorial Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 30, Column 1,

Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. The cost of these plots suggests that putting Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists out of business will require more than diplomatic coalitions and military action. Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists.

The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America´s law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies.

What a bunch of BDS-laden hypocrites!

The New York Times on a Swift Boat to Court? American Thinker   "In today’s terror-stricken world, which is more vital to the public’s interest: being safe, or being informed?"

Bill Keller responds ... arrogancy meter burned out over this one

Bill Keller responds to the uproar of the NYT promoting themselves above the law and above the safety and security of the citizens of the United States. Not only does he put himself and the Times above the law, but above the President, and then claims that it is his duty to know what is best, despite many who tried in vain to convince him otherwise. Can you say God complex? Hugh Hewitt has fisked the letter and a taste appears below. But first I thought I'd bring you Wizbang's summary:

I'll give you the Reader's Digest version:

Dear Reader:

1) We have no reason to believe the program was illegal in any way.

2) We have every reason to believe it was effective at catching terrorists.

3) We ran the story anyway, screw you.

Bill Keller

Tom Maguire warns: "The longer version is simply a longer insult to the intelligence of their critics."

Thanks Tom, I know people listen to you. Readers consider yourself warned.

Okay got that? Now for Hugh's response to Bill Keller, Executive Editor of the Traitor Times:

Mr. Keller Believes You Are Easily Confused

By Hugh Hewitt

The NYT's Executive Editor Bill Keller refuses interviews but does provide a wholly unpersuasive reponse that is, at best, defensive posturing.

I don't always have time to answer my mail as fully as etiquette demands, but our story about the government's surveillance of international banking records has generated some questions and concerns that I take very seriously. As the editor responsible for the difficult decision to publish that story, I'd like to offer a personal response.

First, unless mr. Keller makes himself available for interviews on this subject, he is not taking the questions and concerns seriously.

Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone in combatting the threat of terror.

The very first thing Mr. Keller does is suggest that "conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits" are behind the uproar. This is not responsive at all to any of the many criticisms of the decision to publish, and the parenthetical aside is absurd --does he really think that the story is more publicized among terrorists because critics react to it? He must believe the terrorists to be very stupid indeed, but in so arguing reveals himself to be ignorant of the very sophisticated internet tacticians among the jihadists.

And the sentence noting the support he has received is more posturing. Unless every letter received is published, we have no way of knowing what his mail says, and no reason to trust him.

It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.

This is the first asssertion by Mr. Keller that the Times is above the law. It is
also a crude trick to exchange the publication of national security secrets for "taking the President at his word," which is most certainly not what triggered the outrage.

Nor has his paper "surrendered" anything obviously. I haven't seen one argument that the story could have been enjoined, only that its publication violated the law and damaged the national security.

The straw men are falling fast.

The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly. The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issue involves national security, and especially national security in times of war. I've only participated in a few such cases, but they are among the most agonizing decisions I've faced as an editor.

Deep into the letter and we still have no argument over his right to violate national security laws or endanger national security. So what if he tells us he "agonizes" over these decisions. [READ IT ALL HERE]

Please join our effort on How to Stop the New York Times. I tried in that post to stay  reasonable and not fall into calling for all kinds of terrible things to happen to Bill Keller and his minions, but it is getting harder and harder not to say, "hang the bastard." What a jerk this guy is. Ignorant jerk, no less. It is no wonder the quality of the NYT is so deteriorated, if he is representative of who is running that clownhouse. And to which Don Surber replies: 

Oh, brother. This is the fellow Pinch hired to run things? The gray lady is sinking.

Keller would have been better off remaining silent.

Mr. Keller, some of  us become very offended when we are patronized, lied to, and generally treated as fools, especially when it is by a true fool trying to play God.

Urban Dictionary:
A person who is said to have a "God complex", does not believe he is god, but acts so arrogantly that he might as well believe he is God or appointed to act by God.

Some believe that "God complexes" are particularly common in arrogant, highly educated, worldly, or powerful people.

Sounds like Mr. Keller to me.

Related:

Reliapundit is not buying any of it. His take at DID THE NYTIMES LEAK TO PROTECT NGO-FRONTS FOR TERROR?

In my opinion, the ONLY explanation is that BOTH the NYTIMES and their leakers KNEW THAT THIS WOULD AID THE TERRORISTS. And that this was the CHIEF REASON THEY DID IT.

WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO HURT THE USA AND AID THE TERRORISTS?!

Because they are Arabists who hate Bush and Israel.

Austin Bay gives us the winning quote:  "Bill Keller’s analytic process is a shame and a sham– he does not think America is at war. The semblance of peace in the Hamptons and in Hollywood has blinded him. He isn’t conscientious, he’s unconscious– and the Times act is unconscionable."

Although  Glenn Reynolds may have the tie: "The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn't give freedom to the press. Keller positions himself as some sort of Constitutional High Priest, when in fact the "freedom of the press" the Framers described was also called "freedom in the use of the press." It's the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry. (A bit more on this topic can be found here.)"

Defeat Murtha V - This is too much! (UPDATED)

He's at it again. And whether he keeps saying it or not, the false story of a military cover-up in Haditha gets spread again and again, just like in this one. And I'm still choking  on the statement that the U.S. is more dangerous than North Korea or Iran. I should have titled this post as a GAG FOR THE DAY!

Murtha says U.S. poses top threat to world peace

MIAMI — American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to an audience of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.

Murtha was the guest speaker at a town hall meeting organized by Rep. Kendrick B. Meek, D-Miami, at Florida International University's Biscayne Bay Campus. Meek's mother, former Rep. Carrie Meek, D-Miami, was also on the panel.

War veterans, local mayors, university students and faculty were in the Mary Ann Wolfe Theatre to listen to the three panelists discuss the war in Iraq for an hour.

A former Marine and a prominent critic of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, Murtha reiterated his views that the war cannot be won militarily and needs political solutions. He said the more than 100,000 troops in Iraq should be pulled out immediately, and deployed to peripheral countries like Kuwait.

"We do not want permanent bases in Iraq," Murtha told the audience. "We want as many Americans out of there as possible."

Murtha also has publicly said that the shooting of 24 Iraqis in November at Haditha, a city in the Anbar province of western Iraq that has been plagued by insurgents, was wrongfully covered up.

The killings, which sparked an investigation into the deadly encounter and another into whether they were the subject of a cover-up, could undermine U.S. efforts in Iraq more than the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib in 2004, Murtha said.

"(The United States) became the target when Abu Ghraib came along," Murtha said.

Hat  tip: Sweetness and Light whose response is:

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged." — Abraham Lincoln

One, two, three ... altogether now ... Murtha is a senile old man, vote him out of office ASAP. Support Diana Irey.

Censure Murtha
The saying goes "Once a marine, always a marine."
Because of Jack Murtha this no longer is true...
Sign The Petition

Spport Diana Irey Visit her website and sign up for her email updates and a contribution to her campaign would help her get her word out and defeat Rep. John Murtha.

 

For our previous Defeat Murtha posts click HERE.

The  Murtha Plan:

Hat tip: BMEWS

UPDATE:

Murtha the Male Cindy Sheehan

The day after Mr. McCain articulated why many voters see Republicans as inconsistent and ineffective, a leading Democrat, speaking in Miami, made it crystal clear why his party is an unacceptable alternative. Pennsylvania's Rep. John Murtha, who became a hero to the antiwar left when he called in November for immediate withdrawal from Iraq , went further at a town hall meeting for Rep. Kendrick Meek. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel quoted Mr. Murtha as claiming that the "American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran." He also told the audience of 200 that "we want as many Americans out of [Iraq] as possible" because "we have become the enemy."

Mr. Murtha has been sticking his foot in his mouth a lot lately. He accused Marines in Iraq of murdering civilians "in cold blood," contradicted himself in the same breath by saying they had "overreacted," and asserted that higher-ups covered up the purported crime without backing his statements up. He told a startled Tim Russert of NBC that U.S. troops withdrawn from Iraq could be "redeployed" to Okinawa, Japan, whence they could return "very quickly" to Baghdad--which is 4,899 miles away. And more than once he has offered these examples of presidential leadership: "In Beirut, President Reagan changed direction. In Somalia, President Clinton changed direction."

Here's another take on the change of direction in Somalia: "After a few blows . . . [the U.S.] rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers." That was Osama bin Laden, in an ABC interview in 1998, the same year al Qaeda blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, murdering more than 220. Two years later he struck at the U.S.S Cole off Yemen and killed 17 sailors. The next year his suicide bombers hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and killed more than 3,000 Americans.

"Mr. Murtha sounds less like a Marine colonel these days, and more like a male Cindy Sheehan," writes Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which circulates in Mr. Murtha's district. But all the adulation from left-wing bloggers has apparently convinced the 74-year-old Mr. Murtha that he has a shot at higher office. "The more he gets out there, the more he realizes that he truly has taken on a leadership role," a Murtha aide told Time magazine. This month he told his colleagues that he plans to run for majority leader, the No. 2 job in the House, if Democrats take control this November. It is assumed he would have the tacit or open support of many close allies of the current minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, who won a leadership post in 2001 in large part because Mr. Murtha was her campaign manager and convinced some moderates she was not an antimilitary left-winger.

If Jack Murtha, a backroom operator who is blunder-prone when speaking publicly, is Democrats' idea of fresh leadership, the party is in real trouble. Far from advancing the Democratic argument that Republicans have bred a "culture of corruption" while in power, Mr. Murtha's leadership bid would open a Pandora's box of questions about his own record.
[READ IT ALL HERE]

How to stop the New York Times II ... (UPDATED & Additions)

NOTE: If you think all or some of these ideas are good ones, please link this post and spread the word. In order to make any of it work, we need to spread the word and generate major publicity both in the blogosphere and within government and media circles. Everyone can help. PERMALINK for this post. TRACKBACK for this post. Additions of blogs are listed in their alphabetical order, all other updates are under UPDATE below.

**********************

So Patterico has canceled his subscription to the LA Times, Marc Dansinger does too. Several bloggers have indicated they have canceled their subscriptions to the New York Times. Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO's The Corner has decided not to re-up her weekend subscription. I suppose if enough people cancel, they will see a blip, but I see this more as a statement than as an actual tool to hurt the newspapers where it matters. But, Tom Maguire says, "I don't see how the Times can be stopped."

My suggestion is to take a multi-pronged approach.

First, stop linking to either paper. And most especially, stop linking to anything behind a "pay" wall such as Times Select.

Second, start demanding that major news outlets, especially TV cable news outlets, stop using the New York Times as their primary source for news. I'm sick of always hearing, "according to the New York Times," aren't you?

Third, demand that our government, and most especially the White House, pull the press credentials for the New York Times and the LA Times too, if you believe them to be equally guilty. End all cooperation with them and all their media, no interviews, no credentials. Anyone meets with or talks to them, they lose their job or get demoted or counseled. Treat all contacts between their reporters and government officials as we would contacts with foreign agents.

Fourth, hit them in their pocketbooks with their advertisers. I wouldn't go after the advertisers directly. Instead, I suggest a national campaign that asks the public not to patronize any advertiser who runs an ad in any newspaper or on any TV station that puts terrorist interests above the safety and security of the citizenry of the United States.

Fifth, find the quality newspapers and TV outlets that can move into the slots vacated by the NYT, the LA Times and dare I say it, the Wall Street Journal. If they are quality but have been struggling to make it against the big boys, throw the blogosphere weight behind them. Of course, I would like to see news outlets with a more libertarian or conservative bent get the nod, but partisanship should not be the criteria. Instead, make national security the criteria and make this a "citizen" issue rather than a political one.

Sixth: And it should go without saying, that the blog world needs to demand of DoJ that leakers be found and prosecuted. My suggestion would be to start with Larry Johnson and that whole rogue ex-CIA and VIPs group first and work out from there.

If you have other suggestions or think these need modifying, let me know.

The following is a link list of those proposing various suggestions on how to deal with news outlets who "aid and give comfort" to enemies of the United States by revealing classified information during a time of war. This list is only a start and there are many blogs who have expressed an opinion about the NYT article, but do not offer any suggestions in current posts. And although I may agree, I don't think wishing the NYT would get blown up by terrorists is a very productive suggestion, nor is tar and feathers for Bill Keller, Risen or Lichtblau. We will update as we find more.

Ace of Spades Impose an immediate ban on any government official in any security-oriented agency from speaking to the NYT. They're already forbidden from disclosing national secrets; but apparently that doesn't matter to them. So just make it a firing offense to even be seen talking with a NYT reporter.

The Anchoress People who see all sources of information as equally good will, in time, drop those that cost money. I no longer subscribe to any newspapers at all. I can get everything I want on the Internet for free. The NYT has to make clear it’s value proposition to the consumer. My bet is that they are positioning themselves as being the only news media large enough to uncover government scandals. They are appealing to the fear that in their absence, government agencies will run wild with corruption and deceit. The San Diego Union is currently running just such an ad campaign.

And Another Thing (Mark Levin) The shareholders who own stock in the corporations that own the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal need to become active in demanding that their employees stop giving strategic assistance to terrorists.

Austin Bay "What should be done? The intel program has been compromised; loose lips have sunk this ship. Al Qaeda isn’t the smartest of enemies but many of its  global financiers are sharp– they will change their m.o.  US and coalition intelligence agencies will have to be creative and agile. The Bush Administration should prosecute the leakers, but I don’t think the Administration has the spine for this."

Barking Moonbat Early Warning System I propose that Congress drag the editors of the NY Slimes before an investigating committee and grill the asshats to find out by what authority they assume the power to keep the terrorists overseas and in sleeper cells here in the US so well informed about attempts to track them down and bring them to justice. Personally, I don’t feel a great need to stay informed as to how the work is being done to keep me safe and alive. All I care about is that it is being done. Perhaps the NY Slimes needs to see another 3,000 dead Americans before they decide to act responsibly? I certainly hope not ...

Democracy Project "What is required is new legislation that broadens the existing U.S. Code to include all matters of national security, applicable to all present and former government employees and officials, Congressional members and staff, and the media, coupled with confidential prior judicial consideration and enforcement mechanisms, and strict prosecution of those not abiding." This is an excellent article, I would encourage everyone to read it.

Flopping Aces EMAIL THE NYT’S AT [email protected] AND THE LA TIMES HERE.

GOP Bloggers "Tell the DoJ to finally get serious about prosecuting those responsible for illegally revealing national security secrets." [email protected]

Hugh Hewitt "... let's have some new hearings on the federal press shield law. If the papers really believe they deserve it, let them send their editors to defend that. proposition." Hugh has several posts on this topic and is also covering it on his radio show.

In the Bullpen "Just as there should be in the other cases before, there should be prosecutions in this case."

Powerline "The Times purports to invoke the rule of law where no law has been broken, and where the Times itself has both broken the law and damaged American national" security.

Protein Wisdom I'll take this as a "go ater the leakers" suggestion. "... the real violation of trust here—namely, that leakers within our intelligence agencies are jeopardizing national security, and that both the leakers and those publishing the leaks (whose aim, clearly, is to gin up whatever outrage they can with the hope of undermining this Administration’s tactics for conducting a war they don’t believe truly exists), are doing so with impunity."

The Strata-Sphere "What is criminal here is not the Bush administration investigating terrorists (we want that), and it is not the administration giving US citizens or people here in the US any special bye’s when their information comes up as part of these terrorist investigations, it is the out of control liberal media which exposed this against the warnings of the admininstration. When will the madness end in DC with all these leaks? How much are votes worth to these people?"

Strategy Page "Because the war on terror is fought in a peacetime atmosphere, treason can be presented as dissent, and you can get away with it. Case in point is the energetic pursuit, and publication, of  U.S. intelligence gathering techniques, by the American media.  ...... These traitors will continue to get away with it. Unless their activities are shown to assist terrorists in a particularly direct and obvious way ..." Another very good article.

The Wide Awakes "For the sake of security, let’s tell the media to shut the hell up."

Wizbang " hope other subscribers to the LA Times and the New York Times do the same so as to communicate to these organizations that their publishing of classified antiterror programs in an effort undermine the Bush administration will cause them to take an even bigger hit in their subscription rates."

Related:

SWIFT statement on compliance policy

Fighting illegal uses of the financial system

New York Times Refuses to Hold Surveillance Story

Mr. Keller Believes You Are Easily Confused This is Hugh Hewitt's fisking of Bill Keller's attempt to explain why he became a traitor. Unfortunately Keller's letter sits behind a NYT registration wall, so I will not link to it here, but if you must, you can get the link from Hewitt's fisk. (We have covered this in a separate post HERE.)

UPDATE:

Rep. King Seeks Charges Against Papers Over Terror Reporting

Sunday, June 25, 2006

WASHINGTON  — The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee urged the Bush administration on Sunday to seek criminal charges against newspapers that reported on a secret financial-monitoring program used to trace terrorists.

Rep. Peter King cited The New York Times in particular for publishing a story last week that the Treasury Department was working with the CIA to examine messages within a massive international database of money-transfer records.

King, R-N.Y., said he would write Attorney General Alberto Gonzales urging that the nation's chief law enforcer "begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times — the reporters, the editors and the publisher."

"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," King told The Associated Press.  [CONT'D. HERE]

This is a start. Let's all let Congressman King know we  support such an investigation and a few emails to Gonzales wouldn't hurt either.

And from comments, Clarice Feldman offers these three suggestions worth considering. I like all of them:

-- Publish the names of the stockholders and their contact information.
-- Ditto the NYT's major advertisers. All the blogs can run these.
-- Publish the names of the papers, TV stations the NYT owns and urge that people in those areas boycott them as well.

                More Photoshopping of the New York Times HERE >>>>>>

Murtha the 2nd time around ...

After blasting Rep. John Murtha on his "redploy to Okinawa" lunacy, Robert Novak takes a look back at Murtha's Congressional career:

... Jack Murtha proves there are second acts in American politics. I had forgotten that federal prosecutors designated him an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam investigation 26 years ago. I was reminded of it after Murtha became a candidate for majority leader, not by a Republican hit man but a Democratic former colleague in the House. In a long political career, Murtha has made bitter enemies inside his party who are alarmed by his new stature.

Murtha got into politics in 1968 as a 36-year-old highly decorated Marine and in 1974 became the first Vietnam War veteran elected to Congress. By 1980, Murtha was a lieutenant of Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill and was moving to the top in the House when the FBI named him as one of eight members of Congress videotaped being offered bribes by a phony Arab sheik.

The other seven congressional targets took cash and were convicted in federal court. The videotape showed Murtha declining to take cash but expressing interest in further negotiations, while bragging about his political influence. Murtha testified against the popular Rep. Frank Thompson in the Abscam case, which created lifelong enemies in the Democratic cloakroom. The House Ethics Committee exonerated Murtha of misconduct charges by a largely party-line vote, after which the committee's special counsel resigned in protest.

That salvaged Murtha's political career but limited his public exposure. The current Almanac of American Politics says: "He speaks for attribution to few national or local reporters, hardly ever appears on television and rarely speaks in the House chamber." That reticence has disappeared the last seven months, as he became one of the party's most visible faces.

Murtha now wears his heroic combat record like a suit of armor. In recent House debate over the Iraq war resolution, Murtha dominated the Democratic side -- compensating for a lack of articulation with vehemence. Rep. Louie Gohmert, a freshman Republican from Texas, had the temerity to suggest that had Murtha "prevailed after the bloodbaths in Normandy and in the Pacific ... we would be here speaking Japanese or German." Murtha pounced on Gohmert, asking whether he had been in Normandy, Vietnam or Iraq as a combat solider. The Republican had not, and he meekly thanked Murtha for "all that he has done with the wounded."

Murtha disqualifies adversaries who have not tasted combat, which includes the vast majority in the Congress. He repeats the comparison between civilian officials in "air-conditioned chambers" and soldiers carrying "70 pounds every day facing IEDs." On "Meet the Press," Murtha referred to presidential adviser Karl Rove "sitting in his air conditioned office with his big, fat backside, saying, 'Stay the course!'"

The transfer of Murtha's tough-guy rhetoric from the back row of the hall of the House of Representatives to national television may not be what Democrats want communicating their side of the Iraq debate. It is why Murtha's candidacy for majority leader is cause for concern among serious Democrats.

For a more complete list of Murtha's less than illustrious career, let's turn to a post that we linked to here a few days ago:

Murtha's Murky Past

                                                    

                              

Here's some stuff I dug up with a cursory search on the Internet about John Murtha and his shady dealings. Also notice how he seems to be intertwined with Nancy Pelosi and her crime family...

From the Washington Post talking about Murtha, we have:

He had an ethical scrape in 1979, when he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam bribery scandal and testified against two House colleagues.

In a June 13 front page article in the LA Times (reproduced here), we learn this about John Murtha:

WASHINGTON — When Congress passed the $417-billion Pentagon spending bill last year, Rep. John P. Murtha, the top Democrat on the House defense appropriations subcommittee, boasted about the money he secured to create jobs in his Pennsylvania district.

But the bill Murtha helped write also benefited at least 10 companies represented by a lobbying firm where his brother, Robert "Kit" Murtha, is a senior partner, according to disclosure records, interviews and an analysis of the bill by The Times.

Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting — whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha for 27 years — received a total of $20.8 million from the bill.

One of the clients, a small Arkansas maker of military vehicles, received $1.7 million, triple its total sales for 2004. Several other clients received money that represented more than half of their annual sales from last year.

KSA directly lobbied the congressman's office on behalf of seven companies that received money from the bill, records and interviews show. Among those clients, a firm based in Maryland received one of the larger individual awards, $4.2 million.

And a defense contractor based in Pennsylvania said he hired KSA on the recommendation of a top aide of the congressman.

Disclosure of Kit Murtha's ties to the lobbying firm prompted criticism from Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan Washington watchdog group that tracks government spending.

"Family members lobbying family members is becoming an all-too-common phenomenon on Capitol Hill," he said. "What's even more troubling is that decisions about defense dollars are being made at family reunions rather than the halls of Congress."

Kit Murtha said in a phone interview that he did not lobby his brother's office and that he saw no problem working for a firm that did.

"Let's be honest, the name certainly creates some kind of impression, but I can't help that," he said. "We're not doing anything improper or underhanded. I'm entitled to make a living like the next guy."

Rep. Murtha and his staff declined to answer questions for this report. In public statements, the congressman has said money he inserted into the defense bill has helped make his district a center for national defense programs and has benefited the local economy.

From the blog American Spectator, we have this:

And what's more, Murtha's no stranger to congressional corruption scandals. Though eventually cleared by the House ethics committee (which means nothing legally), John Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam scandal. (Abscam was an FBI sting operation of members of Congress from 1978 to 1980 in which one senator and five representatives were convicted of bribery and conspiracy.) As the Cybercast News Service recently detailed, Murtha was videotaped telling an undercover FBI agent, "I'm not interested. I'm sorry... at this point." When the House ethics committee cleared Murtha in 1981, CNS reported, the committee's lead counsel, E. Barrett Prettyman Jr., quickly resigned. When asked by Roll Call if he had resigned because of the committee's Murtha vote, he said that would be "a logical conclusion."

The blog Flopping Aces quotes this from Roll Call:

In early 2004, Murtha reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. A company called Lennar Inc. had right to the land, and Laurence Pelosi, nephew to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was an executive with the firm at that time.

Murtha also inserted earmarks in defense bills that steered millions of dollars in federal research funds toward companies owned by children of fellow Pennsylvania Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D).

Even the ultra-leftist Village Voice said this about Murtha:

Being called a coward could turn out to be the least of Pennsylvania congressman John Murtha's problems. As the GOP fires up a counterattack against the ranking Democrat on the House defense appropriations subcommittee, Murtha's ties to his brother's lobbying firm are once again coming under scrutiny. Some 10 companies with ties to KSA Consulting, a lobbying firm where Murtha's brother Robert is a senior partner, got $20.8 million in defense contracts. The Los Angeles Times in June reported that the funding was passed as part of the Pentagon's overall $417 billion spending bill.

Roll Call recently reported Murtha leaning on Navy officials to transfer the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard to San Francisco on land whose rights were at one time held by a company whose top execs included Laurence Pelosi, a relative of Nancy Pelosi's. Murtha is widely credited with being a prime figure in getting Pelosi the Democratic minority leader job in the House. Pelosi's office said the suggestion Pelosi was involved in any impropriety was "absolutely ludicrous."

Some Republicans want an ethics investigation. "I have read the articles about these appropriations projects that benefited his brother's lobbying firm," South Carolina Republican congressman Joe Wilson told Roll Call. "If there is a potential pattern where Congressman Murtha has helped other Democrats secure appropriations that also benefited relatives of those members, I believe this would be something that merits further review by the ethics committee." Investor's Business Daily recently suggested that Murtha might have jumped on the anti-war bandwagon to head off an ethics investigation into contract improprieties.

Anyone have the VIDEO from Diana Irey's appearance today on FoX "Dayside?"

Murtha Must Go!

Spport Diana Irey Visit her website and sign up for her email updates and a contribution to her campaign would help her get her word out and defeat Rep. John Murtha.

 

                              

Here's some stuff I dug up with a cursory search on the Internet about John Murtha and his shady dealings. Also notice how he seems to be intertwined with Nancy Pelosi and her crime family...

From the Washington Post talking about Murtha, we have:

He had an ethical scrape in 1979, when he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam bribery scandal and testified against two House colleagues.

In a June 13 front page article in the LA Times (reproduced here), we learn this about John Murtha:

WASHINGTON — When Congress passed the $417-billion Pentagon spending bill last year, Rep. John P. Murtha, the top Democrat on the House defense appropriations subcommittee, boasted about the money he secured to create jobs in his Pennsylvania district.

But the bill Murtha helped write also benefited at least 10 companies represented by a lobbying firm where his brother, Robert "Kit" Murtha, is a senior partner, according to disclosure records, interviews and an analysis of the bill by The Times.

Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting — whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha for 27 years — received a total of $20.8 million from the bill.

One of the clients, a small Arkansas maker of military vehicles, received $1.7 million, triple its total sales for 2004. Several other clients received money that represented more than half of their annual sales from last year.

KSA directly lobbied the congressman's office on behalf of seven companies that received money from the bill, records and interviews show. Among those clients, a firm based in Maryland received one of the larger individual awards, $4.2 million.

And a defense contractor based in Pennsylvania said he hired KSA on the recommendation of a top aide of the congressman.

Disclosure of Kit Murtha's ties to the lobbying firm prompted criticism from Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan Washington watchdog group that tracks government spending.

"Family members lobbying family members is becoming an all-too-common phenomenon on Capitol Hill," he said. "What's even more troubling is that decisions about defense dollars are being made at family reunions rather than the halls of Congress."

Kit Murtha said in a phone interview that he did not lobby his brother's office and that he saw no problem working for a firm that did.

"Let's be honest, the name certainly creates some kind of impression, but I can't help that," he said. "We're not doing anything improper or underhanded. I'm entitled to make a living like the next guy."

Rep. Murtha and his staff declined to answer questions for this report. In public statements, the congressman has said money he inserted into the defense bill has helped make his district a center for national defense programs and has benefited the local economy.

From the blog American Spectator, we have this:

And what's more, Murtha's no stranger to congressional corruption scandals. Though eventually cleared by the House ethics committee (which means nothing legally), John Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam scandal. (Abscam was an FBI sting operation of members of Congress from 1978 to 1980 in which one senator and five representatives were convicted of bribery and conspiracy.) As the Cybercast News Service recently detailed, Murtha was videotaped telling an undercover FBI agent, "I'm not interested. I'm sorry... at this point." When the House ethics committee cleared Murtha in 1981, CNS reported, the committee's lead counsel, E. Barrett Prettyman Jr., quickly resigned. When asked by Roll Call if he had resigned because of the committee's Murtha vote, he said that would be "a logical conclusion."

The blog Flopping Aces quotes this from Roll Call:

In early 2004, Murtha reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. A company called Lennar Inc. had right to the land, and Laurence Pelosi, nephew to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was an executive with the firm at that time.

Murtha also inserted earmarks in defense bills that steered millions of dollars in federal research funds toward companies owned by children of fellow Pennsylvania Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D).

Even the ultra-leftist Village Voice said this about Murtha:

Being called a coward could turn out to be the least of Pennsylvania congressman John Murtha's problems. As the GOP fires up a counterattack against the ranking Democrat on the House defense appropriations subcommittee, Murtha's ties to his brother's lobbying firm are once again coming under scrutiny. Some 10 companies with ties to KSA Consulting, a lobbying firm where Murtha's brother Robert is a senior partner, got $20.8 million in defense contracts. The Los Angeles Times in June reported that the funding was passed as part of the Pentagon's overall $417 billion spending bill.

Roll Call recently reported Murtha leaning on Navy officials to transfer the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard to San Francisco on land whose rights were at one time held by a company whose top execs included Laurence Pelosi, a relative of Nancy Pelosi's. Murtha is widely credited with being a prime figure in getting Pelosi the Democratic minority leader job in the House. Pelosi's office said the suggestion Pelosi was involved in any impropriety was "absolutely ludicrous."

Some Republicans want an ethics investigation. "I have read the articles about these appropriations projects that benefited his brother's lobbying firm," South Carolina Republican congressman Joe Wilson told Roll Call. "If there is a potential pattern where Congressman Murtha has helped other Democrats secure appropriations that also benefited relatives of those members, I believe this would be something that merits further review by the ethics committee." Investor's Business Daily recently suggested that Murtha might have jumped on the anti-war bandwagon to head off an ethics investigation into contract improprieties.

Anyone have the VIDEO from Diana Irey's appearance today on FoX "Dayside?"

Murtha Must Go!

Spport Diana Irey Visit her website and sign up for her email updates and a contribution to her campaign would help her get her word out and defeat Rep. John Murtha.

 

The "cut and run" crowd ...

Hat tip: Murtha Must Go!  

 

To keep abreast of Presidental politics and more great cartoons, see: Iowa Presidental Watch

No moral equivalence

Call me stupid, but I do not see the moral equivalence of cutting out someones heart, cutting off their private parts and stuffing them in the mouth, gouging out the eyes, and cutting heads off to dropping the Koran on the floor or even panties on a person's head or a dog collar around their neck. I hold the terrorists 100% responsible for their barbaric acts, but I also hold the American liberal media and liberal bloggers 80% responsible for what has happened to our two soldiers who were captured, tortured and killed. I'm not going to name names here, but you know who you are. You've been bleating for months about the atrocities of our troops. I defy a one of you to show even one instance where our troops have committed barbaric atrocities. And don't bother telling me about collateral damage to civilians during battle and do not tell me about sleep deprivation, Fruit Loops or loud music.

John Podhoretz asks:

What will such people say about the actions of the military men and women who must do their jobs now in the wake of the unspeakable murders of Tucker and Menchaca?

Will this increasingly passionate refusal to draw distinctions between the actions of Americans at arms and the behavior of Islamofascist monsters continue?

Will they show support for our troops at the moment they most need it - real support, as opposed to crocodile tears and the displays of profound disrespect for their mission? Or will they continue to use any means possible - including harsh judgments of the horrifying split-second choices made by young men in a dangerous situation who have put their lives on the line for the rest of us - to get at the president whom Sullivan, with his typical tone of reserved understatement, yesterday called "shallow, monstrous, weak and petty"?

Will the news media treat our men and women at arms well at such a time by giving them the benefit of the doubt, or will they make another choice?

We shall see whether "I support the troops" is a phrase that means something.

I'm sorry to say, I haven't seen any support for the troops from this vocal, misguided group of ninnies. These are the same people who think playing dodge ball is too rough for their little darlings and that children should be raised in a world of sponge rubber. They despise the military and speak as if they believe that to join the military automatically makes a person a barbarian and murderer. They sit back and call for the most vile things to happen to President Bush or Karl Rove, but a brutal, vicious butcher needs to be coddled and fawned over and rocked to sleep in Mama's arms. It makes me sick.

It's probably a good thing that I'm not a General or the President because I would be telling the troops, take the gloves off, go for it, get these suckers and make them pay and the media and liberal left be damned. You see, I think the military is full of good men and women who would no more be guilty of torturing someone than they would throw themselves in front of a fast moving train. I think they are superbly trained and professional beyond anything we see in the civilian world. So wake up and get your perspective straightened out ... torture is what happened to Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas Lowell Tucker. There is no moral equivalence to Gitmo or Abu Grab or any other trumped up silliness you can conjure up in your sick minds, so shut up. Stop giving aid and comfort to these barbaric savages at the expense of your own countrymen in uniform.

Related:

Real Torture And Murder In Iraq: Where’s The Outrage?

Civil Liberties for Terrorists But Not for American Troops

Higher Ground

Outrage

Ancient history...

Geneva and Savagery (Andy McCarthy)

Our infrequent excesses vs. the persistent barbarism of our enemies. (James Robbins)

Those who say that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter should be asked how they define freedom. Those who compare terrorist or guerrilla leaders to George Washington or other Founding Fathers should explain when it was exactly that they ordered the killing of innocents as a method, or even as a matter of expediency. And especially when they ever sought to invoke God’s approval for inflicting agonizing deaths on helpless captives.

The Daily Kos Reaction To American Soldiers Getting Tortured To Death: "How Quaint."

And Ace calls it bitch slapping: Ali Bubba on Sullivan's "Our Boys Deserve to be Tortured"