The Art Of War: Using The Media Elites
In an interview on NBC's Today Show on Friday morning, Dee Dee Myers, former press secretary to Ms.Clinton, when asked to comment on the MSM being under fire for their negative one sided coverage of the war in Iraq, replied that she believes the MSM's biased negative reporting of the war doesn't shape public opinion or perception.
BULLFUCKINGSHIT!!!
Is Dee Dee Myers really in denial or is she just spinning the truth to suit the liberal agenda she represents?
Let's see - ---- She went on to say that she feels there are plenty of non media sources available that when collectively read provide an"honest picture" of Iraq, then she goes on to identify the State Dept website ( the only other source she mentioned) and concludes by saying that the "honest picture" as painted by "all kinds of sources "is one of failure!
Sounds like the usual bullshit we've come to hear from liberals!
Our enemy, unlike Dee Dee and her fellow media elites, understands the basic principals of "The Art of War" as put forth by Sun Tzu : Don't bother to physically defeat the enemy- rather defeat the enemy's will.
This is what these terrorists are doing and they are using a very willing liberal Anti- Bush, Anti-War, Anti Victory, Pro-Insurgent media to do so. Since the media elites seem to be enamored with mass murdering terrorists and dictators, they are only too willing to report the beheadings, the casualities, and in the case of a certain Aussie journalist, Michael Ware, continously give voice to these terrorists (in his convulated delusional way of thinking, which represents the mindset of most media elites, Michael believes these terrorists are entitled to have a voice in the media and equates them with our military; he sees no difference between them and our troops).
Our media is giving these terrorists exactly what they want.A platform to help break the will of the American people.(i.e SHAPE public perception). By better understanding Sun Tzu's The Art of War, and by duping an all too willing MSM into aiding and abetting them, these terrorists succeed at their objective: To win this battle by breaking the will of Iraqi's and AMERICANS.
So far, the Iraqi's collective will have proven to be far stronger than these terrorists (or insurgents as some mistakenly chose to name them) expected, and so they continue to remain aggressively focused on demoralizing the will of Americans, and have been highly successful in forming a coalition with very amenable and willing Media and Hollywood liberal elites.
If Dee Dee Myers believes the medias biased negative reporting doesn't shape public opinion or perception, then she, like most of the media elites, is either in denial, spinning the truth, or nowhere near as smart as the terrorists.
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
So in war the way is to avoid what is strong and strike at what is weak.
Let me explain this in simple terms for our media intelligentsia:
Avoid what is strong ( Our Military) and strike at what is weak ( Liberal Americans "Will" or lack there off)
Disciplined and calm, to await the appearance of disorder and hubbub amongst the enemy:--This is the Art of Retaining Self Possession.
The appearance of disorder and hubbub(chaos) is what our media is constantly focusing their attention on while failing to recognise or choosing to ignore that over 80% of the country is stable, and the many achievements of our military combined with help from the Iraqi army. This constant focus on the appearance of disorder is exactly what the terrorists want our media to do, in order to help them break down the will of Americans.
A clever general, therefore, avoids an army when it's spirit is keen, but attacks it when it is sluggish:--This is the Art of Studying Moods.
So our enemies understand that as long as the troops spirit is keen, as long as their collective will is strong, the terrorists LOSE. In order to help breakdown the will of our troops, they focus on using the media to destroy the will of the American public. When our will is sluggish, then the type of assinine debate put forth by DEMS and Liberals in Washington occurs - talk of troop withdrawals, talk of casualties(by the way 2000+ is the lowest casualities of ANY war todate) attacks upon the President and his decision to go to war, Zogby polls that are DELIBERATELY misleading, combined with polls conducted by liberal based institutes that are touted in the media and are either faulty or misleading: all this serves to create divisiveness which is THE ONLY way these terrorists can defeat us, and deny democracy in Iraq and by fiat in the Middle East. DIVIDE AND CONQUER. It is the ONLY way they can win. It is the ONLY way they can spread their fundamentalist agenda. And our media elites, are aiding them in doing so, by shaping public opinion, which in turn scares the shit out of Dems who so desperately want to win the 2008 election that they feed into and spread this divisiness and fear, aiding our enemy to defeat us, so that they(the Dems) can in turn defeat Republicans at the polls.
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when we are far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
The insurgents have managed to deceive the media and liberal elites; they have managed to feign widespread disorder, and in doing so, have made it easier for them to crush us; not militarily,that's impossible, but simply by breaking down the will of the people.
By playing on the fears and doubts already instilled in the hearts and minds of Democrats and liberal Americans- thanks to the relentless one sided coverage of the situation in the Iraq by the MSM - these terrorists are cleverly and somewhat effectively- preparing the battlefield to crush us.
BULLFUCKINGSHIT!!!
Is Dee Dee Myers really in denial or is she just spinning the truth to suit the liberal agenda she represents?
Let's see - ---- She went on to say that she feels there are plenty of non media sources available that when collectively read provide an"honest picture" of Iraq, then she goes on to identify the State Dept website ( the only other source she mentioned) and concludes by saying that the "honest picture" as painted by "all kinds of sources "is one of failure!
Sounds like the usual bullshit we've come to hear from liberals!
Our enemy, unlike Dee Dee and her fellow media elites, understands the basic principals of "The Art of War" as put forth by Sun Tzu : Don't bother to physically defeat the enemy- rather defeat the enemy's will.
This is what these terrorists are doing and they are using a very willing liberal Anti- Bush, Anti-War, Anti Victory, Pro-Insurgent media to do so. Since the media elites seem to be enamored with mass murdering terrorists and dictators, they are only too willing to report the beheadings, the casualities, and in the case of a certain Aussie journalist, Michael Ware, continously give voice to these terrorists (in his convulated delusional way of thinking, which represents the mindset of most media elites, Michael believes these terrorists are entitled to have a voice in the media and equates them with our military; he sees no difference between them and our troops).
Our media is giving these terrorists exactly what they want.A platform to help break the will of the American people.(i.e SHAPE public perception). By better understanding Sun Tzu's The Art of War, and by duping an all too willing MSM into aiding and abetting them, these terrorists succeed at their objective: To win this battle by breaking the will of Iraqi's and AMERICANS.
So far, the Iraqi's collective will have proven to be far stronger than these terrorists (or insurgents as some mistakenly chose to name them) expected, and so they continue to remain aggressively focused on demoralizing the will of Americans, and have been highly successful in forming a coalition with very amenable and willing Media and Hollywood liberal elites.
If Dee Dee Myers believes the medias biased negative reporting doesn't shape public opinion or perception, then she, like most of the media elites, is either in denial, spinning the truth, or nowhere near as smart as the terrorists.
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
So in war the way is to avoid what is strong and strike at what is weak.
Let me explain this in simple terms for our media intelligentsia:
Avoid what is strong ( Our Military) and strike at what is weak ( Liberal Americans "Will" or lack there off)
Disciplined and calm, to await the appearance of disorder and hubbub amongst the enemy:--This is the Art of Retaining Self Possession.
The appearance of disorder and hubbub(chaos) is what our media is constantly focusing their attention on while failing to recognise or choosing to ignore that over 80% of the country is stable, and the many achievements of our military combined with help from the Iraqi army. This constant focus on the appearance of disorder is exactly what the terrorists want our media to do, in order to help them break down the will of Americans.
A clever general, therefore, avoids an army when it's spirit is keen, but attacks it when it is sluggish:--This is the Art of Studying Moods.
So our enemies understand that as long as the troops spirit is keen, as long as their collective will is strong, the terrorists LOSE. In order to help breakdown the will of our troops, they focus on using the media to destroy the will of the American public. When our will is sluggish, then the type of assinine debate put forth by DEMS and Liberals in Washington occurs - talk of troop withdrawals, talk of casualties(by the way 2000+ is the lowest casualities of ANY war todate) attacks upon the President and his decision to go to war, Zogby polls that are DELIBERATELY misleading, combined with polls conducted by liberal based institutes that are touted in the media and are either faulty or misleading: all this serves to create divisiveness which is THE ONLY way these terrorists can defeat us, and deny democracy in Iraq and by fiat in the Middle East. DIVIDE AND CONQUER. It is the ONLY way they can win. It is the ONLY way they can spread their fundamentalist agenda. And our media elites, are aiding them in doing so, by shaping public opinion, which in turn scares the shit out of Dems who so desperately want to win the 2008 election that they feed into and spread this divisiness and fear, aiding our enemy to defeat us, so that they(the Dems) can in turn defeat Republicans at the polls.
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when we are far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
The insurgents have managed to deceive the media and liberal elites; they have managed to feign widespread disorder, and in doing so, have made it easier for them to crush us; not militarily,that's impossible, but simply by breaking down the will of the people.
By playing on the fears and doubts already instilled in the hearts and minds of Democrats and liberal Americans- thanks to the relentless one sided coverage of the situation in the Iraq by the MSM - these terrorists are cleverly and somewhat effectively- preparing the battlefield to crush us.
Labels: Hollywood, Iraq, War or Something Like That
posted by DangerGirl @ 3/24/2006 07:21:00 AM
6 Comments:
At 10:52 AM, April 01, 2006,
Praguetwin said…
All warfare is based on deception. And yet the administration expects that their actions are transparent. I'm confused a little here.
What also confuses me is how those on the right constantly complain about liberal reporters who work from the protected green zone. Then, when the extremely brave Michael Ware goes out to the field, he is accussed of being a collaborator. I get it, go out into the field, but don't report on the opposition.
And finaly, like so many others, you fail to distinguish between terrorists, nationalists, and insurgents. In many cases, granted, the lines are blurred. But this blanket catagorization of anyone who opposes the US/Coalition forces as being a terrorist is disingenuous.
You are obviously an intelligent person. You should realize that the resistance is mulit-faceted, complex, and most of all fractured. Know your enemy, and in this case enemies.
Sorry, just one more thing, I think we lost a few less in the first gulf war, or does that not count?
Mike
At 1:51 PM, April 01, 2006,
DangerGirl said…
I'm a card carrying democrat, grew up in Boston, and worked in Hollywood on fundraisers for Bill Clinton.So your msiguided assumptions about my political leanings, Mike, speak volumes about you.
I am a huge supporter of Mike Yon's work, and Robert Kaplans work. Both have spent considerable time in Iraq and out on patrols with the troops.
And Kaplans latest essay authenticates Michael Yon's dispatches.
I also have a great deal of respect for Nic Robertson.
Mike Ware may go out into the field, but he spends time with terrorists who he equates as being the moral equivalent of out troops. He sees the insurgents/terrorists and the US miltiary as being morally equal in this war on terror. This speaks to Ware's agenda...something you either choose to deny or are unable to recognize.
So since you've been completely wrong on everything you have alleged about me in your comments....I suggest you might want to re-examine your own biases and misguided perceptions.
And finally Mike, I do not fail to distinguish between terrorists and insurgents....there are NO insurgents in Iraq...they are terrorists
You're comment speak volumes to your own intellectual myopia and impotence
I speak arabic, its a language my parents speak fluently at home, and I travelled extensively throughtout the Mid East and spent hours talking with and in many cases simply listening to the average arab on the street especially during the Clinton administration.
I can tell, Mike, that you have not likely been in the Mid East, nor do you read Arab papers, so you are in no position to begin to tell me to know my enemy. I know him better than you ever will.
Let me suggest that you read a brilliant essay by Amir Taheri, "The Last Helicopter". It can be found on The Wall Street Journal online.
This fantasy insurgency you and sadly most liberals seem to believe in, does not exist. Insurgency is a word used to describe terrorists by liberals who cannot accept the truth about our enemies. Insurgency is a word used to justify their misguided belief that these terrorists are merely average Iraqi's striking out against an occupying force.
And as for Nationalists- let's see you identify for me who these nationalists are?
Unless of course you mean the millions of Iraqi's who put their life on the line and came out to vote in three elections, who line up daily to join the Army or Police force, or perhaps you mean the the women of Iraq whose own businesses were awarded 250 reconstruction contracts worth more than $250 million by the US Army?
Let me repeat to you here what I said to you on Bogg's blog:
In my humble opinion and that of many others, Riverband has shown her true colours. That you refuse to acknowledge them or choose not to see them is your problem.
I don't care if she and Boggs interact.
I'm not vilifying a woman who has gone through a traumatic experience..all one has to do is read her blog...it's clear what her agenda is, she has been blogging for three years.
What about all the harrowing experiences of the women who were raped by Sunni soldiers under Saddam's leadership? Some of them have had the courage to stand up and testify against him...I'm betting they were not a part of the Sunni privileged class under Saddam.
If you choose to give Riverbend your sympathy so be it..but mine lies with the women and children that were brutalized and murdered under Saddam and those that this so called "insurgency" is murdering and brutalising today!
Now I know it wasn't you that implied I suffer from a pathological inability to sympathazie with this "born woman who has undergone such trauma" but I think it shows a pathology on your part, when you refuse to acknowledge the pain of those women who suffered, were raped, and brutalized by Saddam..simply because their voices are more silent than Riverbend's or because politically they don't share your idealogy...or simply because they don't have a blog where they whine about how hard life is now that they are no longer part of the priviledged class in Iraq.
What's the matter does the pain that many other Iraqi's suffered under Saddam not bother you?
Like I said, in contrast to Riverbend, one can read Iraq The Model, or Free Iraqi and get a much better, honest, balanced perspective about Iraqi's, the arab mindset, and the growing pains of democracy in Iraq.
These guys have been equally "traumatized" and gone through the same harrowing same experiences Riverbend has. They too live in Iraq ...yet their voices stand in stark contrast to Riverbend's. Hmmm...I wonder why??
Ahh but their voices don't matter to you because they support the changes in Iraq and have found a way to understand that the road to democracy is challenging.
They are struggling daily, yet they offer up an honest understanding of the realities of Iraq today and what Iraq was like under Saddam.
And strangely..they seem to like the new Iraq and have much hope for its success. Unlike Riverbend.
If you want to believe Riverbend is traumetized in order to justify her unabashed hatred for America and the Military, her description of a liberating force as an occupying force and her complete denial of what life under Saddam was like for those who weren't Sunni's...so be it.
Hey Sean Penn found Saddam to be charming!!
Now Mike , on Boggs blog, you made some non sensical comment about how it takes patience and skill and knowledge to rebuild bridges and stupidity to destroy them. I wasn't sure what the point of that remark was. So lets be clear about whose is doing the building and who is doing the destroying:
These terrorists murder women and children, destroy pipelines and blow up bridges. It is our military that rebuilds pipelines and rebuilds bridges and rebuilds hospitals and schools and they bring water treatment to Iraqi towns.
Our military is using their knowledge skill and patience to rebuild Iraq day after day while this "insurgency" you are so fond of spends it's days and nights destroying Iraq.
For more than three decades Iraq's life was sheer and limitless terror!
Yet I don't hear Riverbend uttering one word about those years! So lets examine who suffers from a pathological lack of sympathy!
When you learn to speak Arabic...when you travel throughout the Middle East and listen to what the average Arab man says about Americans, about Clinton,Carter, Bush, about Liberals, about democracy and about Iraq and you have studied International Relations, and have a minor in comparative religion, drop by and enlighten me.
Until then I guess the best you can do is fling your pathetic insults at me.
But maybe you should read what Amir Taheri has to teach you about our enemies and what their intent is.
It would serve you well to read his essay entitled "The Last Helicopter" on Wall Street Journal online.
To usurp democracy in Iraq by any means necessary is the first goal.
So far all I can see is that you are supportive of terrorists which you call insurgents or nationalists out of ignorance or a need to feel better about your misguided beliefs.
Yet I see no support or understanding from you towards those Iraqi's that suffered under Saddam, want democracy, line up day after day to join the Iraqi Special Forces and Police force, and want the US military's help in ensuring that stability and security are maintained in a free and democratic Iraq.
After you're done reading Taheri's piece, read Fouad Ajami's essay entitled "Heart of Darkness" also at Wall Street Journal online.
He and I both understand clearly who are enemies are:
"Zarqawi's jihadists have sown ruin in Iraq, but they are strangers to that country, and they have needed the harbor given them in the Sunni triangle and the indulgence of the old Baathists.
For the diehards, Iraq is now a "stolen country" delivered into the hands of subject communities unfit to rule. Though a decided minority, the Sunni Arabs have a majoritarian mindset and a conviction that political dominion is their birthright. .
Instead of encouraging a break with the old Manichaean ideologies, the Arab world beyond Iraq feeds this deep-seated sense of historical entitlement.
No one is under any illusions as to what the Sunni Arabs would have done had oil been located in their provinces. They would have disowned both north and south and opted for a smaller world of their own and defended it with the sword.
But this was not to be, and their war is the panic of a community that fears that it could be left with a realm of "gravel and sand."
At 2:16 PM, April 01, 2006,
DangerGirl said…
All warfare is based on deception. And yet the administration expects that their actions are transparent. I'm confused a little here.
Actually Im the one that is confused by this comment....what are you talking about?
You obviously didn't understand my point...which doesnt surprise me!
And lets be clear about something Mike...we don't need to know what the fucking opposition is doing. You seem to believe that these mass murderers ae "the opposition" as if this is some kind of political election and they are the opposing party running against the incumbent.
This again speaks to your intellectual impotance when it comes to understanding the realities of Iraq and who the enemy is and who the emeny isn't!
Yet in all your glorious arrogance you come around here and on Boggs blog and pretend to have this deep understanding of the complex nature of Iraq and this war on terror.
Mike Ware isn't giving voice to the opposition...he is giving voice to TERRORISTS....gawd it's like you can't bear to hear the word terrorist...let alone acknowledge the truth of who they are.
Sorry, just one more thing, I think we lost a few less in the first gulf war, or does that not count?
I have no idea what you mean when you ask..Does this not count? Count towards what? What is your point?..other than you haven't got one?
At 2:43 PM, April 01, 2006,
DangerGirl said…
Oh and Mike, I, along with millions of other Americans don't give a damn about what Al Zarquawi has to say....what the "insurgency" has to say...what these terrorists...yes.... Mike that is what they are-TERRORISTS- have to say.
The American Media is getting Americans killed. We don't care about the "insurgents" point of view..THEY ARE TERRORISTS. We don't care to understand what a bunch of usurped Baathist or rejectionists believe - they are people who KILL innocents and civilians both while they were in power and now that they aren't in power. We don't give a damn about what Al Zarqawi thinks...because he is a cold blooded mass murder!
So I don't care that Ware goes out and talks to them and offers them a platform to spread their message of hate......These are not opposition candidates...they are TERRORISTS!
They would slit your throat Mike...they don't care about you..or your desire to have forums of discussion in order to bring about some utopian end to conflict.
They are waiting you out..waiting until a weak assed Americans elect weak assed President who cuts and runs just like Jimmy Carter did.
This is what you don't get..this is what you didn't understand about my The Art of War.
These terrorists are playing the media..and they have become enamored with the idea that can drive America out of Iraq by creating enough chaos and media shots to weaken the will of the American people to persist in the liberation and democratization of Iraq.
Change in Iraq is occuring, peace and stability exists in many parts of Iraq and in time will spread throughout all of Iraq.. but it requires patience and tenacity on the part of America and the Coalition.
And it requires that our media and liberals stop giving voice to TERRORISTS under the guise of calling them "insurgents" or "nationalists".
At 7:31 AM, April 02, 2006,
Praguetwin said…
Quickly,
I don't pretend to know about your political leanings. My comment about "those on the right" was directed at "those on the right". You happen to employ the same line of reasoning as "those on the right" and thus, if you choose to include yourself in that grouping by virute of your M.O. on this issue of Ware bashing.
I don't try to pretend to be superior to you. Not that it matters, but I have a similar educational background as you, and I have been to the middle east, but I don't have the experience that you do, and no, I certainly don't speak arabic.
I ask questions about things that seem inconguous in your logic and the logic of the current administration not to trump you intelectually, but to challenge you to be critical of your own arguements and to satisfy my own curiosity.
For example, Sun Tzu says, "all warfare is based on deception." Have you ever stopped to think that the administration would be capable of deceiving the American people to facilitate their tactical agenda? If you believe that the invation was the right thing to do irrespective of the presence of WMD, then wouldn't it follow that it would be acceptable to deceive the American people in the interests of doing the right thing? Is it acceptable to deceive if your ends are noble? Do the ends justify the means?
With regards to the insurgency, I believe that it is multi-faceted. Anyone who supports a group who opposes the US/Coalition presence, is a part of the "insurgency". Polls have shown that a clear majority of Iraqi's already want the US/Coalition forces to exit. Calls are starting to come from Iraqi politicians, and will probably increase over time. Certainly, popular resistance is in it's infant stages, but it is there. As the militias become more independent it is likely that some will be considered "insurgents" I predict that this will happen in the south before it happens in the north (where it hopefully that contingency can be avoided). In short, all resistance should be analysed if you wish to neutralize it. Pretending that no insurgency exists will not help quell it.
My use of "nationalists" comes out of the pentagon notebook. George Bush uses this term. But perhaps I shouldn't use it like that. When I speak of nationalists, I include anyone who loves their contry and wants the US out. There are plenty of nationalists who are not insurgents, there are nationalist insurgents. There are anti-nationalist terrorists. I could go on, but you get the picture. The lines are fuzzy, the groups overlap. When you label someone, you fail to understand their complexity and the uniqueness of thier particular motivations.
An example of what I mean might be a man who lost a close relative to a US bomb, or soldiers bullet. His relative was an innocent, a mistaken killing, of which there are more than a few. If this man takes it upon himself to kill a soldier in revenge, is he a terrorist? Is it likely that an Iraqi man would feel such a duty to avenge, say, a brother? I think you would know better than I would.
I don't pretend to know the answers to any of these questions. Quite the opposite. I am weary of anyone who thinks they have it all figured out. The moment you think you have it all figured out, the world has a way of showing you otherwise.
I seek the truth. Yes, I have my bias, and I own it. I am trying to see both sides. I opposed the war going in under the circumstances (cheifly, not having enough international support, and under the direction of the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney). I never questioned the justice of removing Saddam, rather the effectiveness of doing it the way we have.
I have sympathy for all of the people who suffered under Saddam. I also have sympathy for the people suffering under tens of horribly oppresive regimes around the world. I also have sympathy for every person who has died as a result of our actions since 1991 in Iraq including the horrible sanctions enforced by Clinton and Albright. I have sympathy for the people being shot in the back of the head by the dozen in Baghdad daily. I have sympathy for every single soldier wounded, killed or otherwise hurt by their involvement in this war.
I have sympathy for all of the people who have suffered in Iraq and elsewhere. Simply listening to opposite points of view to my own, and suggesting others do too, doesn't preclude me from sympathizing with anyone.
Finallly, my comment about the Gulf War not counting was in response to your claim that "by the way 2000+ is the lowest casualities of ANY war todate"
So does the first Gulf War count or not?
And finally, I had to re-read my comment to see where I "flug insults" at you, and I could only find where I said you seemed to be intelligent. This was not sarcasm.
You doseem to be intellingent, which I respect, but really angry too. We all know that anger clouds judgement. It is possible that it may be clouding yours. I mean to say this in the nicest way possible. No ill will. Really.
Peace.
Mike.
At 7:38 PM, April 02, 2006,
DangerGirl said…
There is no Michael Ware "bashing" going on!
Michael Ware has admited to being a mouthpiece for terrorists.
When you combine his self-censorship because the jihadis might read it with his frank acknowledgement of the role that the insurgents told him to his face they wished him to play, it's incredibly damning. Now contrast Ware's 2005 Tal Afar reports with the actions of and letter from its mayor recently. No doubt his unsubstantiated charges about US soldiers "manhandling" Iraqi women were also a great interview-smoother with his Islamofascist "contacts".
TONY JONES: Michael, why are they letting you get behind this curtain? Is there a message they are wanting you to get out through Time magazine to the rest of the world?
MICHAEL WARE: Clearly, these men, just like the American military I deal with and the public affairs officers who stick to me like glue and only let me see what they want me to see when I'm with them, so it is with the Jihadis. They're showing me what they want me to see, which is, to be truthful, quite a lot, but they know anything I see or hear is public record. It's their responsibility to confine their information.
This is what I do. Yeah, they do want to get a message out.
They're so media savvy. If they weren't before, they've learnt it, they've polished it.
Even a year ago when I was meeting these nationalist guerrillas who then were ill formed, not yet in clear command and control organisations, even then they were saying to me, "This war is not going to be won on the battlefield. We can't hope to defeat the Americans. It's going to be won in the living rooms of Iraq and Middle America, it's going to be won on television."
They were saying, "We can maintain this, we can, we have, we can sustain this longer than your political will will last. Before your people call you home." Again, that's a part of it now, they're saying, "We're here and we're not going away," and they want to say that to the West. They can tell Arabic channels this until the cows come home, but to have it coming through an American iconic publication like Time magazine, people will listen.
And look, the fact is it's true."
The above are Mike's own words -the man is a shill for terrorists. PERIOD.
Only someone suffering from a synapic misfire or a lobatomy would be incapable of understanding that truth.
I don't mind listening to intelligent opposing views, Mike, however I will not listen to the Anti- American bigotted Sunni comments coming from someone you seem to have a hard -on for and I do NOT intend to support a traitor like Michael Ware! PERIOD! I don't care that he is out in the field. He is a self admited shill for the terrorists! FULL STOP!
Didnt Bryan accuse me of suffering from some kind of psychotic inability to feel sympathy for Riverbend, a woman who he claimed had undoubtedly been traumatized, (something he made up FYI) A comment you seemed to support on Boggs blog!? I consider that an insult!
Lets discuss his thought process:
Riverbend was SOOOO traumatized that she managed to negotate a very lucrative deal to turn her blog into a book and have it translated into numerous languages - in order to spread her message of anti americanism and hatred to many more people!
Riverbend is vitrolic in her condemnation for the American military liberation which she views as an occupation. I suggest she speak to those citizens who lived in France and Austria during the time that Hitler OCCUPIED their countries. I assure you that during a real "occupation", she would not have been allowed to speak out against the "occupying forces" without being killed! Wait..shouldn't someone who lived in Prague have an understanding of the difference between an occupying force and the American presence in Iraq?
Riverbend has never once condemned the "insurgency" that kidnapped Jill Carroll or beheaded 100's of civilians trying to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure or the mass murders of Iraqi citizens who join the police force. Instead she condemns the American military and President Bush.
She hates the challenges that the new democratic Iraq is facing claiming woman can no longer go to work safely- but what about all the challenges that women faced under Saddam: the rape and deaths of Iraqi women at Udays hand OR the fact that while she enjoyed the privileges of a Saddam-run Iraq,the majority of Iraqis, who witnessed on television Saddam's dealings with any and all terrorists, have considered him the world's biggest terrorist and have seen him ride whichever wind would prevail for him. During his war with Iran, he "became" Shi'a -- among other things, posters of Muhammad's family tree were circulated showing Saddam and his sons as descendents of the Prophet. In the '90s, he had a revelation, and called for "a campaign of faithfulness," putting the country on a fundamentalist track. Alcohol was banned AND extreme tribal ways were advocated for dealing with women, and hundreds of women were beheaded in public (allegedly for prostitution, but actually for dissent), and their heads posted in front of their homes.
Gosh..no mention of that in her blog! Nope! Just her vitrolic hatred for America, the American military, and a new Iraq not being run by a Sunni minority that killed the Shia and Kurd majority!
I would suggest to you that perhaps the 250 women who now own businesses in Iraq and were awarded millions of dollars in contracts from the US Army to rebuild Iraq aren't longing for the good old days.
Yet this is a woman whose "opposing point of view" you feel is worth listening to?
Mike- you have to choose WHICH opposing points of view you embrace and which you don't.
Moral relativism is the height of hypocrisy. And you wear the scent of Moral Relativism too strongly!
Her POV is not worthy of discussion or consideration, and since she doesnt offer up any other alternative for Iraq,and all she does is condemn the Military while NEVER ONCE condemning Saddam and offering up a comparison between "Saddam's Iraq" and The New Democratic Iraq - then all she is a shill for terrorism. PERIOD. Nope not interesed in her POV!
If I want different views, I can read Iraq the Model, or Free Iraqi. Both of these writers discuss the downside of what has happened, yet they also see the UPSIDE and celebrate a new democratic Iraq. They understand the road is long -they face the same challenges Riverbend does -yet they understand the future is filled with hope and exciting possiblities... thanks to AMERICA!!!!
They also do not blame Clinton for the suffering imposed by Saddam's selfishness which you seem willing to do.
Saddam robbed his people in the Money for Oil scam. BLAME THE BASTARD.
When you're not blaming Clinton then you're still blaming America for taking the right kind of action(militarily) in order to have him comply with a treaty he signed off on!
The sanctions imposed on Saddam and the UN Resolution written as part of his surrender terms were agreed upon by EVERYONE in the world!
Yet, Germany, Russia, and France decided to do backroom deals with Uday, while he and daddy dearest starved the Iraqi people. These countries defied the very sanctions they agreed upon!
Do you NOW understand WHY they voted against invading Iraq??
Because they were in Saddams back pocket.
So you would have had America,the UK, and the coalition countries continue to sit and chat with Saddam...asking him to comply with a surrender treaty he agreed to...while he was busy amassing WMDS and meeting with Osama and spent 13 years defying?
Lets examine these documents found in Iraq:
ONE OF THE MOST AMAZING THINGS in this document for Iraqis is the openness with which the Iraqi regime acknowledged that it engaged in terrorism, and particularly in its embassies.Since the fall of the regime, machine guns, weapons-silencers and torture implements have been found in abandoned embassy safes.
While Iraqis fled the country in droves, seeking legitimate asylum elsewhere (an estimated four to five million ended up abroad, more than a million of them, forcibly driven out), the regime went searching far and wide, inviting "Arabs," purely for their terrorist utility. Meanwhile, as actual Iraqis feared going to Iraq and had the doors of Iraqi embassies and consulates literally and figuratively slammed in their faces, their Arab "brothers" were being lavished with scholarships, the royal treatment and exorbitant sums of money, at their expense.
Isn't funny...didnt Riverbend in her latest post wax endlessly about how Iraqis now have to leave the country because its too scary to live Iraq?
Hmmm yet no mention of the millions that fled out of Saddams Iraq or were forcibly pushed out!
Hmm...let's see what else was going on in Riverbend's Saddam -controlled Iraq.
The IIS(Iraqis Secret Service under Saddam) and Osama bin Laden met on February 15, 1995, the IIS met with bin Laden in Sudan, and he made two requests of the Iraqis that 1) they broadcast the speeches of a radical Saudi cleric; and 2) they coordinate in attacking foreign forces inside Saudi Arabia.
In 1997 Iraq was actively pursuing contacts with opponents of the Saudi government and begins by describing Iraqi efforts to establish ties with the "Committee for the Defense of Legitimate Rights," an Islamic group somewhat less radical than bin Laden, but also more popular at the time.
Why did bin Laden ask for Iraqi support in attacking foreign [i.e. U.S.] forces in Saudi Arabia? The most evident explanation is that he wanted to do so, but lacked the capability to carry out such an attack on his own.
It's interesting how all these left wing intelligentsia and Europeans who were insisting there was NO connection between Saddam and OBL are wrong - according to documents uncovered in Iraq during OEF written by Iraqi gov't officials!
Wow...let's see how they will spin this truth!
What makes me laugh Mike, is that you have the balls to say I'm angry but not once do you recognize how ANGRY Riverbend is. Her entire blog is nothing but one huge anger rage against America.
I'm not angry! I am passionate in my commitment to NOT supporting terrorists, to NOT supporting a media that supports terrorists and gives them a platform to help them win the war, and to NOT listening to "opposing viewpoints" from anyone( i.e Riverbend) who is a biased, selfish uncaring supporter of terrorism.
Also, you claim that there are "polls" taken stating that Iraqis want America out of Iraq. Really. Mike? Show me these alleged polls. Do they say they want the US to leave tomorrow, the day after, in 6 months?? When Mike?
Time after Time Iraqi's have said America will need to leave Iraq but NOT before the country is stabilized and secure! Now if that happens tomorrow..GREAT! But we both know it won't. It will likely take a generation - ten years!
If we leave tomorrow without a strong Iraqi police force and Army..without the gov't working and functioning..then the world will wake up to find an Iraq in which Zarqawi and his fundamentalist Sunni murderers are in control!
Do you seriously think that is the best alternative? Do you seriously think Iraqi "nationalists" want that to happen?
I think the "nationalists" want Americans to leave when Iraq’s indigenous leaders have the wherewithal to manage the problem on their own – that is, an elected govt, a viable military able to fight the insurgency, and a police force that can police crime and not one second before!
German nationalists wanted the US out of Germany post WW2-We built bases and stayed and no one has a problem with it today. Japanese nationalists wanted the US out of Japan post WW2-we built bases and stayed and no one seems to have problem with it anymore.
Do you understand why we maintained bases there? what..Oil you say?? NO!
We maintained bases to protect Europe from ever experiencing the ravages of war again. Let's not forget that after WW2 The Soviet Union was hellbent on spreading Communism and did so..something Im sure any citizen of Prague would surely remember!
Do you understand why we have bases in the Middle East? What..OIL you say??!
NO! America has plenty of natural oil resources within her own country. We have bases in the M.E.because we need to ensure that we can prevent Arab dictators from doing what Hitler and Stalin were able to do in Europe.
So its likely we will have to maintain a couple of basis in Iraq to help keep the wolves at bay. So what. It didn't hurt Europe..it won't hurt Iraq. Iran may have a problem but they want to kill us so I don't give a damn about how they might feel. Any Iraqi "nationalist" that has a problem with one or two bases in Iraq is likely on Iran's payroll!
Now back to this issue about Mike Ware bashing: Let me be clear Mike Ware gives YOUR enemies - the very men who would slit your throat for not being Muslim - a voice - a platform to spread their hatred - and he anabashedly admits that he knows they need to do it in order to win the war!
Yet you seem to stand firm in your misguided belief that we are unjustifiably "bashing Mike Ware"!
Let me repost that quote from him once again so maybe you can finally GET it:
Even a year ago when I was meeting these nationalist guerrillas who then were ill formed, not yet in clear command and control organisations, even then they were saying to me, "This war is not going to be won on the battlefield. We can't hope to defeat the Americans. It's going to be won in the living rooms of Iraq and Middle America, it's going to be won on television."
He refers to them as'Nationalist guerillas'. Nice PC term.
What they are is t-e-r-r-o-r-i-s-t-s.
They want to regain control of the country ,continue to terrorize Iraqi's and subjucate all other Arab nations turning them into fundamentalist states in order to breed more terrorists who will then attack the West: First Europe, the Isreal, and then the U.S.
Its an terrorists wet dream!
These people who you claim have "opposing views" worth listening to, are the same people that bombed a Spanish train killing 100s of innocent people, bombed London Subways and Busses killing more innocent people and bombed hotels in Jordan while an Islamic wedding was taking place.
These are the mass murderers that Mike Ware is giving a voice too!
Quoting Mike: They can tell Arabic channels this until the cows come home, but to have it coming through an American iconic publication like Time magazine, people will listen.
Do you get it Mike?? Do you understand they are using Ware and he is willingly aiding and abetting our enemy to win this war in the ONLY way THEY have admitted to him that they can win!
Do you FINALLY understand that he is a traitor to democracy, a traitor to Australia which supports the war on terror and that Time Magazine - an American Media Outlet - is a traitor to America!
When the Rosenbergs were arrested - there was far less evidence to prove they were spies for communist Russia - and they were executed.
But today Mike Ware admits that he is helping our enemies by providing them with a platform to deliver their message in order to breakdown the will of Americans, to capitalize on the divisiveness about this war already in existance, and to use tv to win the war...and not only to YOU support him, but you delude yourself into believing that he is giving voice to a "legitimate opposition".
And then YOU want ME and millions of other Americans to lend him our support, to applaud him and to stop "bashing" him.
Mike, you don't get to be supportive of all sides in this war! You either support our enemy (and by supporting people like Mike Ware or Riverbend, you by fiat, support our enemy) OR you support US. PERIOD.
There isn't a complex situation going on in Iraq -it's black and white.
There are those who are willing to build a democratic Iraq and put their life on the line for it in order to help reshape the M.E, to live in freedom, and to protect democracy & freedom within Iraq and by fiat, protect America and Europe from the insanity of these terrorists OR there are the terrorists! PERIOD!
Insurgents are terrorists.Nationalists who refuse to allow democracy to take root, and who use violent means against those that support democracy and much needed American presence in Iraq are terrorists.
Plain and simple.
Post a Comment
<< Home