Whose side are these people on (referring to the mainstream media). I have asked this question often in this blog, because the mainstream media usually seems to be on the side of the TERRORISTS. Here is today's treasonous story:
"President Bush secretly approved U.S. military raids inside Pakistan against alleged terrorist targets, according to a former intelligence official with recent access to the Bush administration's debate about how to fight al-Qaida and the Taliban inside the lawless tribal border area.
The former official spoke Thursday on condition of anonymity to describe the classified order."
Note the "reason" for the "anonymity". It is to CONCEAL TREASON--enable TREASON. The above excerpt is from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press", although the rest of the mainstream media is surely reporting it.
Q.E.D. These people (mainstream media) are SANCTIMONIOUS HYPOCRITES. Remember all of that ridiculous hand wringing over the supposed "outing" of Valerie Plame as a mere employee of the CIA? To listen to the truly despicable, despicable AP, the mere revealing of the name of a CIA employee (for which her husband was responsible) "copromised" the security of the U.S. Then these same people (AP and rest of media) turn around an ENDANGER AMERICAN LIVES as they support our enemies. You just can't get any worse than these people.
Do you doubt that the AP, and the others, are likely to have the BLOOD OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS on their hands? You really are a fool, aren't you.
What is the main danger to American troops in Pakistan? It is the ATTACKS by the Taliban and al-Qaida from their tribal sanctuaries in Pakistan. What is the result of "revealing" this "information" (rumor and gossip, since we have no way of checking whether it is true when the source is anonymous)? The inevitable result, which has already happened, is to provoke Pakistan into PROTESTING these "raids" (even if Pakistan secretly wants them to happen, so long as Pakistan is not involved). If ONE American soldier is killed because we have to stop PROTECTING American soldiers with "raids" into Pakistan, that soldier's blood is on the hands of the AP. I DARE anyone from the AP, or defending the AP, to explain how I am wrong on that.
You will remember that Barack "World" Obama advocated an INVASION of Pakistan. What was wrong with that? It is the same thing that is wrong with this story. You don't OPENLY say you are going to impinge on the sovereignty of an ally. It is a foreign policy disaster. I said so at the time Obama said that, and say so now. Whose side is OBAMA on, to openly provoke Pakistan?
However, I HOPE President Bush PRIVATELY allows the American military to protect American soldiers. You can't fight a war and let the enemy have unmolested sanctuaries from which to attack you. You do what President Bush MAY have done (again, I hope so). You allow the American military to do what is necessary t protect American soldiers, but you try not to INSULT Pakistan in the process. That means you MAY tell Pakistan some things, and get at least their tacit approval (know full well that Pakistan will condemn the U.S. if the operations come out). You will probably keep some things totally secret.
This is what is really strange about the mainstream media. They act like this is not their country, but an enemy And they say things seemingly intended to cause PROBLEMS for the Bush Administration (even though they are also problems for the COUNTRY). Yet, these stories really make the Bush Administration look GOOD (except for the leak), and the mainstream media look BAD.
Now if you want to be really cynical, you might suspect that the mainstream media is being USED by the Bush Administration in some sort of deep game to force Pakistan to do what we want. Even if you are that cynical, the mainstream media, especially the despicable AP, looks
No comments:
Post a Comment