SECDEF Dumbsfeld: WHY Are You Permitting This Anti-Military AP Bigot to Embed with Our Troops in Ramadi?
SECDEF Dumbsfeld: WHY Are You Permitting This Anti-Military AP Bigot to Embed with Our Troops in Ramadi?
Michael Savage has said REPEATEDLY that the US military should eject all reporters “embedded” with US troops in Iraq – as they prove continually to be a source of anti-American, anti-Iraq War, and anti-military reporting.
As Savage astutely points out, such seditious reporting not only discourages the American public and demoralizes the troops on the ground, but it ALSO is a real MORALE-BOOSTER for the enemy.
So, why does SECDEF Dumbsfeld and his stable of Perfumed Princes myopically continue to hobble their own alleged “war effort” by allowing MSM reporters to embed with their troops?
Well, now – curiously on the heels of an ongoing brouhaha over whether the MSM is overly negative in its Iraq War coverage, where one of the (legitimate charges) leveled at MSM reporters is that they do most of their “war reporting” from hotel balconies – we see that AP is “announcing to the world” that it is embedding a reporter in one of the worst trouble spots for US troops, Ramadi.
The reporter chosen for this mission is a real “winner” -- AP West Africa Bureau Chief Todd Pitman.
Already, in his evidently first dispatch, written from Baghdad prior to arriving at his destination in Ramadi, Mr. Pitman issues a snarky, and virulently pro-jihadist piece, quoting one local Baghdad reporter who says that things (in Baghdad) are not getting worse by the day, “but by the hour.”
If SECDEF Dumbsfeld had a clue or a cojone, he would pull Mr. Pittman out of Ramadi today. (However, the operative word is . . .”If.”)
Of course, based on past performance, we can expect very little in the way of intelligent policy vis-à-vis the presence of overtly hostile (to the military) reporters being permitted to embed with our troops.
This is yet one more reason why President Bush – were he a strong and insightful leader (which he is most certainly not with respect to the Iraq War ) – should fire not only SECDEF Dumbsfeld, but also several top generals, as well. (For doubters, see the precedent set by wartime Presidents Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, neither of whom shrank from firing generals as appropriate.)
Please remember that people like Michael Savage and I are criticizing President Bush and SECDEF Dumbsfeld – not from the position of the moonbat left, that there is no enemy in Iraq, but – from the perspective that we face a worldwide conflict between the Islamofascists and the West. Winning this conflict will require far clearer thinking and far more lethal approaches that what we see emanating from the White House and the Pentagon at this time.
Such criticism, coming as it does, from people who IN PRINCIPLE support the war effort, SHOULD cause the White House and the Pentagon to sit up and take notice.
But, apparently, those folks think they “know better” than we common folks, so they continue with their inane politically-correct ways of refusing to name the enemy and refusing to permit our men to unleash our military power against the enemy. (The overwrought concern the Pentagon has for preventing civilian casualties did not obtain in World War II – which is the last true war that the American military has won outright.)
Michael Savage has said REPEATEDLY that the US military should eject all reporters “embedded” with US troops in Iraq – as they prove continually to be a source of anti-American, anti-Iraq War, and anti-military reporting.
As Savage astutely points out, such seditious reporting not only discourages the American public and demoralizes the troops on the ground, but it ALSO is a real MORALE-BOOSTER for the enemy.
So, why does SECDEF Dumbsfeld and his stable of Perfumed Princes myopically continue to hobble their own alleged “war effort” by allowing MSM reporters to embed with their troops?
Well, now – curiously on the heels of an ongoing brouhaha over whether the MSM is overly negative in its Iraq War coverage, where one of the (legitimate charges) leveled at MSM reporters is that they do most of their “war reporting” from hotel balconies – we see that AP is “announcing to the world” that it is embedding a reporter in one of the worst trouble spots for US troops, Ramadi.
The reporter chosen for this mission is a real “winner” -- AP West Africa Bureau Chief Todd Pitman.
Already, in his evidently first dispatch, written from Baghdad prior to arriving at his destination in Ramadi, Mr. Pitman issues a snarky, and virulently pro-jihadist piece, quoting one local Baghdad reporter who says that things (in Baghdad) are not getting worse by the day, “but by the hour.”
If SECDEF Dumbsfeld had a clue or a cojone, he would pull Mr. Pittman out of Ramadi today. (However, the operative word is . . .”If.”)
Of course, based on past performance, we can expect very little in the way of intelligent policy vis-à-vis the presence of overtly hostile (to the military) reporters being permitted to embed with our troops.
This is yet one more reason why President Bush – were he a strong and insightful leader (which he is most certainly not with respect to the Iraq War ) – should fire not only SECDEF Dumbsfeld, but also several top generals, as well. (For doubters, see the precedent set by wartime Presidents Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, neither of whom shrank from firing generals as appropriate.)
Please remember that people like Michael Savage and I are criticizing President Bush and SECDEF Dumbsfeld – not from the position of the moonbat left, that there is no enemy in Iraq, but – from the perspective that we face a worldwide conflict between the Islamofascists and the West. Winning this conflict will require far clearer thinking and far more lethal approaches that what we see emanating from the White House and the Pentagon at this time.
Such criticism, coming as it does, from people who IN PRINCIPLE support the war effort, SHOULD cause the White House and the Pentagon to sit up and take notice.
But, apparently, those folks think they “know better” than we common folks, so they continue with their inane politically-correct ways of refusing to name the enemy and refusing to permit our men to unleash our military power against the enemy. (The overwrought concern the Pentagon has for preventing civilian casualties did not obtain in World War II – which is the last true war that the American military has won outright.)
posted by GunJam at 8:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home