Posted on 07/02/2006 6:04:33 PM PDT by Eagle9
If anyone doubts that the most serious threat to American security is the lack of fundamental loyalty on the part of significant segments of our population beginning with members of our intelligence and military agencies (egged on by irresponsibile leaders of the Democratic Party and the media), one has only to read this item from Reuters in today's news. Apparently some officials in the Pentagon, concerned that the White House might take action against Iran have leaked classified information to the press (which the press, of course, is all to eager to publish for our enemies to view). This particular tidbit of damaging information is that America actually doesn't have the military ability to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities. If this information is true, it is invaluable intelligence to the fanatics in Teheran. If it is not true, why would anyone leak it, since leaking it only encourages Iran's nuclear ambitions?
The leaking of this information is espionage -- as clearly defined by America's espionage laws. It provides extraordinarily valuable informaiton for the enemy and at one time would have been considered treasonous and prosecuted. Of course the government is unable to prosecute traitors anymore, it can't even monitor terrorist communications from abroad without having half the country's political actors in an uproar.
The information published by Reuters endangers the security of every American. Obviously the betrayers of America's military secrets ensconced in the Pentagon no longer believe in our democratic process which elects a commander-in-chief. Instead, whoever leaked this information feels authorized -- probably by the New York Times and John Murtha -- to take authority over matters of war and peace into its own hands by leaking national secrets to the enemy (with the aid of a willing media) in order to tie the hands of the elected commander-in-chiefs. But why not, since the entire liberal community, beginning with the Democratic Party leadership and the New York Times is demanding just such behavior so that Americans can defend themselves against an un-elected president who has destroyed our Constitution and launched a useless war under false pretenses.
One of the least appetizing aspects of this liberal war on America's national security is how liberals rationalize their behavior as self-defense.Frank Rich in today's Times accuses the Bush Administration of attacking the media because it is losing the war in Iraq. In other words Bush is the divider and the aggressor. Only to a solipsist like Frank Rich. Half the difficulties of the war in Iraq stem from the interal war that liberals like Rich and the leaders of the Democratic Party have conducted against the Iraq war from its inception. A divided nation is a weak nation and everyone -- friend as well as foe -- knows it. The left's no-holds-barred assault on Bush is rationalized by the left as their noble reaction to the alleged illegality and false pretenses of the war in Iraq. But the war in Iraq has ten times the legitimacy of Clinton's war in Bosnia which received no congressional authorization and had no Security Council ultimatum and no violated truce to justify it. That didn't bother liberals at all because it was their war and solipsistic as they are, no principles other than their self-interest applied to it. As for the charge of false pretenses, the removal of Saddam Hussein by force was called for by Clinton as well as Bush, and was authorized by a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress with full access to the intelligence information on which the decision to go to war was based and which was assembled by a CIA whose director who was a Clinton appointee.
The opposition to this administration and this war is the most disgraceful in the history of this nation. Let's hope these betrayals don't result in another 9/11. Or worse.
LOL, yes but ironically it was his country that went down first in the same manner. I think we have time, but we need to screw the courage to the heart and take these leakers/treasonous bas$tards on in full public view. Bring it on!
bttt
ping
bttt
liberals think the rosenbergs selling bomb secrets to the USSr was a good thing.
We need to imprison many of these leakers to set a proper example to the others.
I agree with you 100%, but the ACLU will still insist they were "denied their freedom of speech".
Is this the Seymour Hersh article he's referring to?
The Reuters article, which Horowitz links to in the second sentence, refers to a New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh on Sunday July 2.
The New Yorker
LAST STAND
The military’s problem with the President’s Iran policy
By Seymour M Hersh
2006-07-03
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060710fa_fact
That 7-3-06 Hersh article recycles a lot from his 4-8-06 New Yorker article.
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact
Both of these articles apparently recycled a lot from an earlier article, The Coming Wars
The Pentagon responded, "Statement from Pentagon Spokesman Lawrence DiRita on Latest Seymour Hersh Article", on January 17, 2005. See post 38.
Horowitz refers to Frank Rich in the fourth paragraph. Since I don't subscribe to the online NYT, I haven't read that editorial.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.