The Times; Afraid of Fearing the Right Thing to Fear

“why, six years after 9/11, is this sort of fishing expedition the supposed first line of defense in the war on terrorism?” – The New York behind the Times Editors

The NY Times editorial board is getting really angry with the Democrats, as are the Kos-mynauts; forget about Bush, oh yeah they hate him, but the Dems are really letting them down. This morning’s editorial is rife with misunderstanding and msm, Leftist “fear mongering;” the fear mongering that they are best at. There is so much to pick and pull apart that I chose to pick one paragraph only to look at; the boards logic and line of thought is mentally exhausting:

“But the problem with Congress last week was that Democrats were afraid to explain to Americans why the White House bill was so bad and so unnecessary — despite what the White House was claiming. There are good answers, if Democrats are willing to address voters as adults. To start, they should explain that — even if it were a good idea, and it’s not — the government does not have the capability to sort through billions of bits of electronic communication. And the larger question: why, six years after 9/11, is this sort of fishing expedition the supposed first line of defense in the war on terrorism?”

“…if Democrats are willing to address voters as adults,” Democrats do not know how to treat “voters” as adults as they rarely act like adults themselves. As for the Times, this spoon feeding editorial as with most of them is not speaking to adults as much as it is speaking to the immature child in all of us; leading child of course being the “board.”

In this one paragraph the board appears to treat the technical issue, “the government does not have the capability to sort through billions of bits of electronic communication,” as though like “immigration” it doesn’t have the man power. These “billions of bits” are not something physical that someone will “listen” too, but would in one instance identify whether the data was a domestic call rather than terrorist to terrorist in nature; one of the many pieces that will help protect against the “spying” on Americans the board is so concerned about.

Further and again, in this paragraph alone:

“And the larger question: why, six years after 9/11, is this sort of fishing expedition the supposed first line of defense in the war on terrorism?”

The board is comprised of completely clueless individuals or it is just so cynically disingenuous that it is blinded to the most basic elements of security and the need for data to sort or sift through; what don’t they get? This “larger question” is quite possibly the most stupid question I have ever heard and reveals the utter lack of understanding of their chosen subject to whine about.

A few weeks back the NIE was released; a commonsense reaction to it and to me an example of how bad the Times (and msm in general) is at reporting and is available at TCSDaily and written by Pejman Yousefzadeh. If this is how the reporting goes, why should I expect anything better from the Board?

From “Unintelligent Intelligence”:

“It may be that for different people, different parts of the NIE stick out. The part that stuck out for me was the reference to the fact that AQI was "the most visible and capable affiliate" of al Qaeda and that al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is "the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland." Contra the Times story, of course, nowhere in the NIE does it say that the war in Iraq "spawned" al Qaeda. Even if you want to argue that the war in Iraq did spawn AQI, you cannot say--as the Times did--that the NIE makes such an assertion. Indeed, nothing even resembling that comment appears in the NIE. Curiously enough, the Times story completely downplays language in the NIE discussing how al Qaeda's efforts have been curbed . . . while—again—making up claims about how the NIE says the Iraq war "spawned" AQI. Apparently, writers at the Times don't think that the rest of us can actually get access to and read the NIE.”

Also of interest should be “FISA: Don’t Mend It, End It” from Andrew C. McCarthy at NRO; again, does the NYTimes have a clue?:

“We should be equally affronted by the hypocrisy of congressional Democrats and the leftwing commentariat. It’s not national security or the “rule of law” they care about. It’s politics — plain, simple, and brass-knuckled. The calculation: If George W. Bush can be hurt a polling point or two (yes, there’s still room to go down) by posturing over law-breaking, it’s okay to roll the dice with our lives.”

“For nearly two years since the New York Times blew the NSA’s warrantless-surveillance program, the Left has transfigured itself into a whirling dervish of indignation over President Bush’s imperious trampling of “the rule of law.” Why? Because he failed to comply with the letter of FISA, which purports in certain instances to require the chief executive — the only elected official in the United States responsible for protecting our nation from foreign threats — to seek permission from a federal judge before monitoring international enemy communications into or out of the United States.”

Lastly, "Right is Right" had some interesting words yesterday on this very subject, not the Times but the MSM/Dem/Leftist lack..."Granting the President Power"

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/8568572921329842857

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Shadowscope, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The Fairness Doctrine Isn't Fair Enough

The Fairness Doctrine is receiving new life these days even from the likes of a Trent Lott who recently said that Talk Radio needs to be looked into.

The Fairness Doctrine is a political doctrine with the usual emotional name that implies something in the realm of Talk Radio is not fair. Emotion does not belong in the debate but makes its way into it when one needs to fight logic.

Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and others are railing against the “doctrine” as a tool to silence debate and the free marketplace, which it is when one stops to think about it and one does not have to stop and think about it long to come to that conclusion. Radio stations are in the business for money and it falls that if something doesn’t make money through ad revenue that something won’t remain on the air long.

Yesterday Hannity made remarks about being called a “shill for the Republican party,” and pointed out that when he doesn’t agree or think something is bad for Conservatism he speaks out; true.

Liberal radio doesn’t do so well and it has been said that is because in general the media tilts leftward; agreed. But it can also be said that Liberal radio tends to be a shill for the Democrat party. Ever listen to Air America? I have during commercial breaks while listening to Hannity or others and it’s nothing but a propaganda machine that blames Bush for everything, including a hurricane.

The listeners have choices; tune into this station or that one. I personally don’t want to hear some will Leftist ideas on the program I am listening to especially if in rebuttal like the media used to have to do. Oftentimes some Leftist will be interviewed and they often don’t have a leg to stand on; might this be reason Liberal radio doesn’t do well too.

In the interest of “fairness” and in this time that immigration “reform” is all the rage I would like to suggest this:

Rebut Conservative ideas with Liberal ones on radio; then be sure to rebut either or both with anything else that exists regardless of how unpopular or small. Then ensure that each of these views is repeated from a black, Latino, Chinese, Japanese etc. perspective. Follow this with or include as it is rebuts in the appropriate language of the slice of the population it represents. Let’s not forget the transgender and all the rest either. If Talk Radio follows through with this “doctrine” as just elaborated on a three hour slice of the day can then cover just one topic (if that much) rather than many. The effect will be to make Talk Radio as effective as our politicians in Washington.

I think folks like Lott enjoyed the boost gained from radio that spoke from a point of view with which he agreed. However, like most politicians he believes it should have its limits; those limits are reached when the American people begin to speak too loudly; those limits are reached when the political elite begin to lose some of their rule because the obvious rabble doesn’t really know the issue(s) or what it takes to rule lead.

To the politicians Talk Radio loses its luster when it becomes apparent the American people are catching on to their game of doing something that is actually nothing.

Maggie's Notebook has a great post on the "doctrine," with some good links and a mention by Michelle Malkin (that's not nothing!) this morning about how she's been "keeping tabs" on its movement - Give it a read and follow the links.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1430521511553394285

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, A Blog For All, Right Celebrity, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, High Desert Wanderer, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, Pursuing Holiness, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Escape and Evade or Making War to Keep Peace

An essay by Karen Hanretty at NRO this morning argues that “John Edwards is not your father’s antiwar candidate.” In an aside, John Edwards would not be my “father’s antiwar candidate;” where else would you think I get my bloodlust for bumper sticker wars?

I would like to take Hanrettys point and apply it to the entirety of the antiwar Left and antiwar Dems in general.

Edwards like others of his mindset just don’t seem to get it or else they willingly ignore it in an effort to paint the issue as Bush or “Bush’s War” as though it would or will go away once that warmonger is out of office. The candidates speak of ‘I would talk with our allies (what’s left of them after the buffoonery and hardheadedness of Bush) and bring the U.S. back to the respectable place we were before;’ a kind of 9/10 I guess as that is the only place one could go back to, although you can’t go back there either.

The Left (fringe, Edwards, Dems) has argued in the past for pulling out of Iraq as though that is the end all necessity to the end of our troubles in Iraq and between us and Iran. Yet where would they pull out to? I’ve made mention previously that the “where to” is in a little known place called “Betwixt” but that’s another story. The suggestion has been to have a quick reactionary force somewhere else, but there really is no quicker reaction possible to someone not in country.

According to Hanretty, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations recently Edwards suggested this recipe:

'“My plan calls on Congress to use its funding power to stop the surge and force an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops from Iraq, followed by an orderly and complete withdrawal of all combat troops in about a year.”'

To combat those that would do us the Iraqis harm, Edwards adds that we would:

'“retain sufficient forces in the region to prevent a genocide, deter a regional spillover of the civil war, and prevent an al Qaeda safe haven”'

Oddly in response to this, Hanretty points out the obvious to most that “isn’t that what our troops are having difficulty doing already, even as President George W. Bush implements his “surge” strategy?” Sounds about right to me, but then again I’m paying attention and not interested in ignoring all the realities I don’t like.

The obvious to me and the reasoning for having considered “betwixt” is for the reason that if we are so despised in the region and our being there offends so many; one of whom (the cave dweller that is bin Laden) has said we don’t belong anywhere in the region; why would a continuation of our presence be in anyone’s interest?

The reason is because we need to be there. As part of the title of this post entails, sometimes war is necessary for peace. Peace does not always just come about and peace is often the norm where diplomacy is involved, but diplomacy too often calls for the status quo and the allowance of certain ills in order to maintain that “peace.” It’s more of a relative peace. Gaza is a mess now and Israel left it with an interest in peace; well where’s the peace? It is also the case that nations that are not actually involved there are blamed for it just the same.

The belligerents or troublemakers are not going to go away; they will likely be invigorated as even when they lose they claim victory, however with the departure of the U.S. in Iraq for example they would have a victory and a big one at that. Iran, the Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda would have a relatively and nicely placed location from which to sow more discord and further disrupt any possibilities toward something more Democratic or peaceful.

Once out of Iraq we would sit and wait for a direct hit on us or an accumulation of takeovers and difficulties that would require action well after the time that would have been more productive. We would need to enter after further entrenchment of radicals; the very radicals that threaten any kind of peaceful cohabitation or coexistence now.

Karen Hanretty points to the posthumously published Jeanne Kirkpatrick book, “Making War to Keep Peace,” and uses it for the benefit of a historical case in point; Afghanistan.

In the section of the book that covers the U.S. involvement with Afghan resistance forces, the Soviet Union was utterly defeated; from the book:

“The conflict was done, and it seemed appropriate to leave, so we did. Talks of maintaining a U.S. presence, of extending an occupation, or even of nation building were not seriously contemplated.”

“Not long after the U.S. personnel left, fighting spread among the various warlords, ethnic groups, and factions in Afghanistan. The wars among these warlords and ethnic groups were bitter, characterized by personal violence among families, clans and groups. The long struggles further fractured an already fragile society, until the Taliban emerged as the strongest and most violent. Dogmatic and harsh, the intolerant Taliban moved ruthlessly to eliminate opponents and consolidate power. Their near-universal repression was far more onerous than anyone foresaw.”

There are certainly no guarantees that had we remained in Afghanistan in some fashion that wouldn’t have ultimately generated some forces that would wish to do harm to the fledgling nation, nor to us. But with hindsight we should not dismiss it out of hand or for electoral purposes just because it doesn’t fit or wouldn’t look good.

In order to maintain peace, a real peace, sometimes it is necessary to fight for it knowingly and willingly you may have to fight for it and defend it more often than you would care for; but it just might be of necessity. We have seen in the past what giving in for the sake of peace has wrought, perhaps not immediately, but often down the road when least expected. The defense of peace is often done via offensive means otherwise you’re just waiting to be hit and what good is a defense that allows one to be hit. Peace throughout history has often been fought for, maybe not immediately but eventually. Once those that insist on creating war have forced it upon us we jump in and do what we can; often successfully.

We’re slowly being backed into a corner and I see no reason to get all the way to that corner before striking back, as at some time we may reach a point that we can not fight back from.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/8602812498070176305

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Mark My Words, The Random Yak, Big Dog's Weblog, Adam's Blog, Maggie's Notebook, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, third world county, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Right Voices, OTB Sports, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.