New York Times Keeps Mum For Its Own
Jun 23, 2009 Political
David Rohde, a reporter for the New York Times, was captured in Afghanistan seven months ago and a few days ago he escaped and is on his way to safety. I am happy he escaped and hope he is none the worse for wear.
The story of his capture was not made public by the NYT. Bill Keller decided that it would put him in danger if the story was published so the took the “agonizing” decision to keep it under wraps.
Deciding not to report initially on reporter David Rohde’s capture by the Taliban for seven months was “an agonizing position that we revisited over and over again,” New York Times executive editor Bill Keller said Sunday.
“All along, we were told by people that probably the wisest course for David’s safety was to keep it quiet,” Keller said in an interview on CNN. My Way News
This is the same New York Times that disclosed one secret government plan after another even after being asked not to so that our troops would not be placed in further danger. The NYT only held one story and did not do that for very long. The paper decided that it was in the public’s interest to know about the secret programs.
When it came to one of their own, the paper decided to keep the story quiet so as not to endanger the employee.
Where was the public’s interest?
This is further proof that the NYT is an anti American paper. They took great pride in hurting America when George Bush was trying to protect us even though they were told it could place our troops in further danger.
This should demonstrate the bias of the NYT as well as their hatred of our troops.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: afghanistan, david rohde, new york times, secrets, treason, troops
Did Obama Negotiate With Our Enemy?
Feb 4, 2009 Political
Barack Obama was pretty quick to point out that there was only one president at a time. He usually pointed this out when something tough came up and he did not want to commit himself to it. The Israeli/Hamas conflict comes to mind.
The one president meme did not stop Obama from injecting himself into other things and if one of them that is now being reported is true, he should be tried for treason. The Washington Times is reporting:
According to GeostrategyDirect.com, a newsletter published by The Washington Times’ ace national security reporter Bill Gertz, “Diplomatic sources said Barack Obama has engaged several Arab intermediaries to relay messages to and from al Qaeda in the months before his elections as the 44th U.S. president. The sources said al Qaeda has offered what they termed a truce in exchange for a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan. ‘For the last few months, Obama has been receiving and sending feelers to those close to al Qaeda on whether the group would end its terrorist campaign against the United States,’ a diplomatic source said. ‘Obama sees this as helpful to his plans to essentially withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq during his first term in office.’ ” [emphasis mine]
Now, I don’t know who the diplomatic sources are or if they even exist. If this is true then I imagine the source will eventually be disclosed.
This is very serious for several reasons. First of all this probably violates the Logan Act. Not that it matters because Nancy Pelosi and some of her Democrats did that on a regular basis when Bush was president. The most serious issue with regard to this is that al Qaeda is our enemy. If Obama was contacting them to work a truce or work some other kind of deal in return for the removal of our troops from Afghanistan then he was aiding the enemy. I wonder if Obama has been watching how Hamas honors truces? Does he think al Qaeda would be different?
He was in no official capacity. He was a Senator running for the presidency. If he acted in his capacity as a Senator he definitely violated the Logan Act and since he was on an unsanctioned mission and met with our enemy secretly, he committed treason. This, of course, is contingent on the story being correct.
Like I said, the source is not known so this might either not be true or we will never be able to prove it. The accusation is damaging enough especially in light of Obama’s outreach to Muslims in the last week. His first interview was with a Muslim news organization and he blamed America for the problems. He has had them stop playing Hail to the Chief and has replaced it with a Sting song, Desert Rose which is noted for the duet with an Algerian singer. Maybe this outreach is to make good on promises undertaken prior to the election.
I am a bit skeptical because this indicates he bargained to leave Afghanistan but Obama has stated that he was sending more troops there. There is no telling what his intentions are but right now it would appear as if he will draw down from Iraq and move troops to Afghanistan.
However, al Qaeda might have wanted us to leave Afghanistan but settled for something else.
Remember when Obama was holding secret meetings telling Iraq not to make any deals until he took office? Those meetings were denied at first but it turns out he had them.
That means he is not above holding secret meetings.
As for meeting with the enemy? That remains to be seen but considering his past associations he already consorted with the enemies of this country.
Of course, he did say he would be willing to meet with anyone without precondition…
Others:
Power Line
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: al-qaeda, Obama, secret meetings, treason
Jimmy Carter Does the Unthinkable; Again
May 27, 2008 Opinion, Political
It is no secret that Jimmy Carter, America’s worst president, has a distaste for Israel and that he spends his time on unsanctioned missions of appeasement with terrorists. His actions go directly against the goals of the current administration and he harms not only our goals but his meddling is a direct threat to Israel. Carter recently stated that the US needed to negotiate [Doug Ross] with Iran and that Iran had rational leaders. Carter also suggested that the US should give Iran nuclear material to use for its peaceful purposes. Carter lamented that the Bush administration has not done what every other administration has done and that is to engage in dialog with countries with whom we differ.
Carter has now done the unthinkable and certainly something that no other administration has done. He has divulged one of Israel’s secrets. Carter told the world that Israel has nuclear weapons and then told everyone that the country has 150 of them. Carter disclosed a secret that has been held closely by other presidents as well as the Israeli government. It has long been speculated that Israel had nuclear weapons but the country would never confirm or deny that and they certainly never stated how many they might have.
Carter is an absolute disgrace and he has harmed an ally in his quest to destroy Israel and boost the terror supporting countries and entities of the Middle East. How far will this has been go to achieve his appeasement of harmful nations? Will he divulge US secrets as well? Will this idiot tell the world what we have and possibly where it is? Al-Qaeda must be listening intently for its next mission brief.
Jimmy Carter thinks we should negotiate with Iran and its fanatical leadership, one of whom was involved in the taking of American hostages on Carter’s watch. Jimmy Carter allowed Iran to take invade our embassy and take its people hostage. He tried to negotiate with Iran over this issue and I have one question for him; How did that work out for us? We all know that Iran thumbed its nose at us and kept our people for more than a year. They released the hostages when Ronald Reagan took office. Perhaps Iran knew that Reagan would not pussyfoot around with drawn out negotiations. They were afraid the new President would retaliate with military force.
Carter is way past useful to this country and only maintains his status as useful idiot to those who wish to do us and Israel harm. The US needs to keep an eye on this guy and keep him from disclosing any more secrets. If he violated any law we need to prosecute him.
Most presidents get out of office and work on their libraries compiling their successes and leaving a legacy. Some help the country with humanitarian missions or as advisers. Carter has nothing good to look at and his legacy is poor at best. If he had a successful presidency he would be busy working on his own stuff but since he failed to get anything right when he had the chance he is trying to fix it now. No one is asking him for his help and yet he keeps jumping in.
The only problem is, he keeps using the same methods that led to his failed presidency. Continually doing the same thing and expecting a different result is one definition of insanity.
Tags: classified, failure, jimmy carter, meddler, treason
The Left Will Hate This News, Fewer Soldiers Killed
Oct 1, 2007 Military
The left in America will not be happy about the news out of Iraq where it was reported that the number of US deaths in the month of September was the lowest in 14 months and marked the fourth month of decrease. Seems to me that this coincides with the time line of the surge:
US military losses in Iraq for September stood at 70 on Sunday, the lowest monthly figure since July last year, according to an AFP tally based on Pentagon figures.
The figure also marks the fourth consecutive drop in the monthly death toll following a high of 121 in May. June saw 93 deaths, July 82 and August 79. The monthly toll in July 2006 was 53.
Two US soldiers were killed on Saturday in separate incidents, pushing the overall toll of American losses since the March 2003 invasion to 3,801. Breitbart
The anti war left is hell bent on using the names and faces of our war dead to force a surrender. They love to count the number of dead and use that information as a reason to stop and surrender immediately. Since they insist on using the number of dead as a benchmark to bring them home, will they now say it is OK to stay?
We are winning the war and the surge is working. Anything good for America is bad for the Democrats and the rest of the liberals. I wonder how this will change what the Democratic candidates have to say?
This also cannot be good news for those in Congress who want to surrender. Now they have to think of another reason…
Sometimes unrelated trackbacks to: Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, guerrilla radio, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Stageleft, Nuke’s, third world county, DragonLady’s World, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: KIA, liberals, Link Fest, Political Opinion, surrender, traiters, treason, war