Some Quickies From The Captain
I haven't really been online today. Bust work, "honey-dos", and so forth. But now I'm on, and I find three interesting stories from Captain Ed today. The first is from the New York Times, and a correction they posted in regard to a story they ran about a non-commissioned officer that was comforting a mother who had lost a son recently in Iraq.
An article and a picture caption yesterday about the funeral of Sgt. Jose Gomez of Queens, who was killed on April 20 in Iraq, referred incorrectly to the Army representative who comforted his mother. She was a sergeant first class an enlisted woman, not an officer. The article also misstated the name of a service medal that a general presented to Sergeant Gomez's mother. It is a Purple Heart, not a Purple Star.
OK. First off, the woman identified is an officer--a non-commisioned one. An actual Officer--a lieutenant or ensign and above--is entirely different from an NCO. Captain does a good job explaining the differences. But what is sickeningly funny about this is they screwed up the name of one of America's oldest and most recognized medals. The Purple Heart was created by George Washington. In addition, was the Times not one of the papers hyping Sen. Kerry's Purple Hearts just a year or so ago? So was this a simple snafu that missed the editors, or was this deliberately done.
It's a valid question folks; the Times, after all, has tried in the past two weeks to defend itself over the NSA story from last December, and then wrote a "puff-piece" regarding Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He's the bad guy in Iraq, remember? I think it might be time for the Times to start watching over their editors. With such advanced age, and apparent senility, they might let a piece slide by that identifies Congress as the Reichstag.
And Congratulations to the Captain for this:
The New York Post has adapted my lengthy post about the NSA phone-call database into a column for today's edition titled "Sacrificing Here". I argue that both sides have a point about the program, but that the sacrifice is not only limited and reasonable for the war effort, but that it's practically been the only one we've been asked to make ...
I've read his original piece, and I've read the Post's. He makes the glaringly obvious point that we have yet to be asked to sacrifice anything, except some limited privacy. Now, I'm coming from the point of view of a person who does enjoy his privacy and quiet. We both do. And whereas I'd be leery otherwise of doing something so small, we are at war.
During World War II we sacrficed a heck of a lot more than what we have thus far in this war. We dealt with food and gas rationing back then, scrap metal and old rubber drives, and dealt with semi-regular air-raid drills disrupting our days and nights. Thus far, we've been told to go out, do our jobs, go shopping (yes, shop, shop, shop, and drive the economy), and understand that as our enemy has a knack for infiltrating our country the government has an obligation to find them.
Just so the Left understands this, they're not out running around wearing signs or shirts with the word "terrorist" on it. We don't know where they are. To date (and if the failing memory serves me) there are three sleeper cells that have been nailed so far since this war started. One in Detroit, one in Lodi, CA, and one in Lackawanna, NY. It was solid investigation, backed up be tenacious intelligence work, that broke those cells. This wasn't a customs guy stumbling across some suspicious maps of LAX. They tracked them down, and arrested them.
And I'm positive that a good majority of that tracking came in the same programs that two newspapers chose to disclose. The New York Times broke the NSA terrorist surveillance program in December of 2006. The USA Today added onto that story by figuring out the one alluded to by James Risen and Eric Lichblau--the authors of the Times piece. These outlets have decided that revealing classified material is nothing more than reporting the news, and is unable to comprehend why so many people are up in arms over this.
Again, for the Left, that would be us being the ones up in arms; the ones who understand WHY we're at war.
Why we defend these programs isn't because we're wanting any of our rights stripped. We don't want to see the Constitution torn asunder all in the name of security. But honestly, the NSA terrorist surveillance program isn't violating anyone's rights. We are specifically going after terrorists, their supporters, and using that information in reverse order to locate their masters abroad. At the same time, we are listening to what they're saying. Honestly, who thinks that our enemies "privacy rights" are so important that they have to be adhered to? We spy on virtually every nation on the face of the earth, so is this any different?
I think not. And with legal backing, we know that the president had the authority to move forward with warrantless surveillance. Likewise this phone info story has no legs. The information obtained, some would argue, isn't benign. I disagree. Based on the article in the USA Today (provided it's accurate) stated that the information obtained didn't include names, addresses or any compromising personal information. If all they want to know is how often I use the phone to call certain numbers, they're going to be pretty bored. But they wouldn't be if they saw I had been talking with Zarqawi, or Ayman al-Zawahiri. Then, they'd be quite interested. I'd hope they would be. (I'm not, and if I were I'd tell them to surrender; their troubles will only continue to multiply.)
The unhinged, fever-swamp hysteria over these programs is completely insane. And there's no reason for it. Further, it makes no sense for the Left to keep carping about all that we've lost in terms of civil liberties during this war when we haven't. And the first time something pops up that brings that to question, the Left loses their mind. We're at war, you asshats. Get used to it. And your only hope of stopping it is retaking the White House in 2008. But as long as you don't have it, we're in this for the long haul. We can't simply turn away from has to be done.
It's one thing to question methods and motives; that's all a part of our freedom of speech. But it crosses the line when you reveal something you shouldn't have known in the first place to a world that didn't need to know. Not because we like keeping secrets but because we like keeping them from our enemies.
And I'm still calling for prosecutions of the papers involved, their reporters, and their editors for breaking the law. NO ONE is above the law, and that includes the press.
Publius II
I haven't really been online today. Bust work, "honey-dos", and so forth. But now I'm on, and I find three interesting stories from Captain Ed today. The first is from the New York Times, and a correction they posted in regard to a story they ran about a non-commissioned officer that was comforting a mother who had lost a son recently in Iraq.
An article and a picture caption yesterday about the funeral of Sgt. Jose Gomez of Queens, who was killed on April 20 in Iraq, referred incorrectly to the Army representative who comforted his mother. She was a sergeant first class an enlisted woman, not an officer. The article also misstated the name of a service medal that a general presented to Sergeant Gomez's mother. It is a Purple Heart, not a Purple Star.
OK. First off, the woman identified is an officer--a non-commisioned one. An actual Officer--a lieutenant or ensign and above--is entirely different from an NCO. Captain does a good job explaining the differences. But what is sickeningly funny about this is they screwed up the name of one of America's oldest and most recognized medals. The Purple Heart was created by George Washington. In addition, was the Times not one of the papers hyping Sen. Kerry's Purple Hearts just a year or so ago? So was this a simple snafu that missed the editors, or was this deliberately done.
It's a valid question folks; the Times, after all, has tried in the past two weeks to defend itself over the NSA story from last December, and then wrote a "puff-piece" regarding Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He's the bad guy in Iraq, remember? I think it might be time for the Times to start watching over their editors. With such advanced age, and apparent senility, they might let a piece slide by that identifies Congress as the Reichstag.
And Congratulations to the Captain for this:
The New York Post has adapted my lengthy post about the NSA phone-call database into a column for today's edition titled "Sacrificing Here". I argue that both sides have a point about the program, but that the sacrifice is not only limited and reasonable for the war effort, but that it's practically been the only one we've been asked to make ...
I've read his original piece, and I've read the Post's. He makes the glaringly obvious point that we have yet to be asked to sacrifice anything, except some limited privacy. Now, I'm coming from the point of view of a person who does enjoy his privacy and quiet. We both do. And whereas I'd be leery otherwise of doing something so small, we are at war.
During World War II we sacrficed a heck of a lot more than what we have thus far in this war. We dealt with food and gas rationing back then, scrap metal and old rubber drives, and dealt with semi-regular air-raid drills disrupting our days and nights. Thus far, we've been told to go out, do our jobs, go shopping (yes, shop, shop, shop, and drive the economy), and understand that as our enemy has a knack for infiltrating our country the government has an obligation to find them.
Just so the Left understands this, they're not out running around wearing signs or shirts with the word "terrorist" on it. We don't know where they are. To date (and if the failing memory serves me) there are three sleeper cells that have been nailed so far since this war started. One in Detroit, one in Lodi, CA, and one in Lackawanna, NY. It was solid investigation, backed up be tenacious intelligence work, that broke those cells. This wasn't a customs guy stumbling across some suspicious maps of LAX. They tracked them down, and arrested them.
And I'm positive that a good majority of that tracking came in the same programs that two newspapers chose to disclose. The New York Times broke the NSA terrorist surveillance program in December of 2006. The USA Today added onto that story by figuring out the one alluded to by James Risen and Eric Lichblau--the authors of the Times piece. These outlets have decided that revealing classified material is nothing more than reporting the news, and is unable to comprehend why so many people are up in arms over this.
Again, for the Left, that would be us being the ones up in arms; the ones who understand WHY we're at war.
Why we defend these programs isn't because we're wanting any of our rights stripped. We don't want to see the Constitution torn asunder all in the name of security. But honestly, the NSA terrorist surveillance program isn't violating anyone's rights. We are specifically going after terrorists, their supporters, and using that information in reverse order to locate their masters abroad. At the same time, we are listening to what they're saying. Honestly, who thinks that our enemies "privacy rights" are so important that they have to be adhered to? We spy on virtually every nation on the face of the earth, so is this any different?
I think not. And with legal backing, we know that the president had the authority to move forward with warrantless surveillance. Likewise this phone info story has no legs. The information obtained, some would argue, isn't benign. I disagree. Based on the article in the USA Today (provided it's accurate) stated that the information obtained didn't include names, addresses or any compromising personal information. If all they want to know is how often I use the phone to call certain numbers, they're going to be pretty bored. But they wouldn't be if they saw I had been talking with Zarqawi, or Ayman al-Zawahiri. Then, they'd be quite interested. I'd hope they would be. (I'm not, and if I were I'd tell them to surrender; their troubles will only continue to multiply.)
The unhinged, fever-swamp hysteria over these programs is completely insane. And there's no reason for it. Further, it makes no sense for the Left to keep carping about all that we've lost in terms of civil liberties during this war when we haven't. And the first time something pops up that brings that to question, the Left loses their mind. We're at war, you asshats. Get used to it. And your only hope of stopping it is retaking the White House in 2008. But as long as you don't have it, we're in this for the long haul. We can't simply turn away from has to be done.
It's one thing to question methods and motives; that's all a part of our freedom of speech. But it crosses the line when you reveal something you shouldn't have known in the first place to a world that didn't need to know. Not because we like keeping secrets but because we like keeping them from our enemies.
And I'm still calling for prosecutions of the papers involved, their reporters, and their editors for breaking the law. NO ONE is above the law, and that includes the press.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 5:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home