A Special Letter

The 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment has been in Tall 'Afar, Iraq; they are just returning home now. Read for yourself what the Iraqis think of them:

From the Mayor of Tall 'Afar, Iraq to the men and women of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and their families (via the excellent Mudville Gazette):

In the Name of God the Compassionate and Merciful

To the Courageous Men and Women of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who have changed the city of Tall’ Afar from a ghost town, in which terrorists spread death and destruction, to a secure city flourishing with life.

To the lion-hearts who liberated our city from the grasp of terrorists who were beheading men, women and children in the streets for many months.

To those who spread smiles on the faces of our children, and gave us restored hope, through their personal sacrifice and brave fighting, and gave new life to the city after hopelessness darkened our days, and stole our confidence in our ability to reestablish our city.

Our city was the main base of operations for Abu Mousab Al Zarqawi. The city was completely held hostage in the hands of his henchmen. Our schools, governmental services, businesses and offices were closed. Our streets were silent, and no one dared to walk them. Our people were barricaded in their homes out of fear; death awaited them around every corner. Terrorists occupied and controlled the only hospital in the city. Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the bodies of their young. This was the situation of our city until God prepared and delivered unto them the courageous soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who liberated this city, ridding it of Zarqawi’s followers after harsh fighting, killing many terrorists, and forcing the remaining butchers to flee the city like rats to the surrounding areas, where the bravery of other 3d ACR soldiers in Sinjar, Rabiah, Zumar and Avgani finally destroyed them.

I have met many soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment; they are not only courageous men and women, but avenging angels sent by The God Himself to fight the evil of terrorism.

The leaders of this Regiment; COL McMaster, COL Armstrong, LTC Hickey, LTC Gibson, and LTC Reilly embody courage, strength, vision and wisdom. Officers and soldiers alike bristle with the confidence and character of knights in a bygone era. The mission they have accomplished, by means of a unique military operation, stands among the finest military feats to date in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and truly deserves to be studied in military science. This military operation was clean, with little collateral damage, despite the ferocity of the enemy. With the skill and precision of surgeons they dealt with the terrorist cancers in the city without causing unnecessary damage.

God bless this brave Regiment; God bless the families who dedicated these brave men and women. From the bottom of our hearts we thank the families. They have given us something we will never forget. To the families of those who have given their holy blood for our land, we all bow to you in reverence and to the souls of your loved ones. Their sacrifice was not in vain. They are not dead, but alive, and their souls hovering around us every second of every minute. They will never be forgotten for giving their precious lives. They have sacrificed that which is most valuable. We see them in the smile of every child, and in every flower growing in this land. Let America, their families, and the world be proud of their sacrifice for humanity and life.

Finally, no matter how much I write or speak about this brave Regiment, I haven’t the words to describe the courage of its officers and soldiers. I pray to God to grant happiness and health to these legendary heroes and their brave families.

NAJIM ABDULLAH ABID AL-JIBOURI

Mayor of Tall ‘Afar, Ninewa, Iraq

This should be required reading for liberals, even if, as in Clockwork Orange, we have to pin their eyes open to make them drink it in. The people of Tall 'Afar beg to disagree with you, Howard Dean, Al Gore, John Kerry, Harry Reid, and the rest of you sniveling, whining, unpatriotic chickenshit liberals.

Whew! I feel better now!

This Iraqi mayor has quite a command of English, doesn’t he? I wonder if he’s a re-patriated expatriate?

Are Reporters Citizens?

The Armed Liberal, posting at Winds of Change, has a very interesting post up today. I hope you’ll read the whole thing, as it is a great exploration of the intersection of war and reporting.

What got the Armed Liberal thinking about this, it seems, is The Los Angeles Times' story about Michael Yon, and its dismissive and typically liberal tone. The Times, and other lamestream media, seem to have a problem with Michael Yon’s openly pro-America, pro-military style. There’s also been a lot about an incident that Michael Yon reported on wherein he became part of the story, by picking up a gun to defend a wounded American soldier in imminent danger, and himself. Most reporters thought this action was inappropriate; Michael Yon (and the Army) did not. In other words, Michael Yon is an American citizen first, and a reporter second.

It seems that in the lamestream media, reporters are supposed to be reporters first, and American citizens second (and perhaps the latter is optional, even). The Armed Liberal repeats a story involving Mike Wallace (of 60 Minutes fame) that illustrates this very well:

Then Ogletree turned to the two most famous members of the evening’s panel, better known than William Westmoreland himself. These were two star TV journalists: Peter Jennings of World News Tonight and ABC, and Mike Wallace of 6o Minutes and CBS. Ogletree brought them into the same hypothetical war. He asked Jennings to imagine that he worked for a network that had been in contact with the enemy North Kosanese government. After much pleading, the North Kosanese had agreed to let Jennings and his news crew into their country, to film behind the lines and even travel with military units. Would Jennings be willing to go? Of course, Jennings replied. Any reporter would-and in real wars reporters from his network often had. But while Jennings and his crew are traveling with a North Kosanese unit, to visit the site of an alleged atrocity by American and South Kosanese troops, they unexpectedly cross the trail of a small group of American and South Kosanese soldiers. With Jennings in their midst, the northern soldiers set up a perfect ambush, which will let them gun down the Americans and Southerners, every one. What does Jennings do? Ogletree asks. Would he tell his cameramen to “Roll tape!” as the North Kosanese opened fire? What would go through his mind as he watched the North Kosanese prepare to ambush the Americans? Jennings sat silent for about fifteen seconds after Ogletree asked this question. “Well, I guess I wouldn’t,” he finally said. “I am going to tell you now what I am feeling, rather than the hypothesis I drew for myself. If I were with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think that I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans.” Even if it means losing the story? Ogletree asked.

Even though it would almost certainly mean losing my life, Jennings replied. “But I do not think that I could bring myself to participate in that act. That’s purely personal, and other reporters might have a different reaction.” Immediately Mike Wallace spoke up. “I think some other reporters would have a different reaction,” he said, obviously referring to himself. “They would regard it simply as a story they were there to cover.” “I am astonished, really,” at Jennings’s answer, Wallace said moment later. He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture him: “You’re a reporter. Granted you’re an American"-at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship. “I’m a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you’re an American, you would not have covered that story.” Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn’t Jennings have some higher duty, either patriotic or human, to do something other than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot? “No,” Wallace said flatly and immediately. “You don’t have a higher duty. No. No. You’re a reporter!” Jennings backtracked fast. Wallace was right, he said. “I chickened out.” Jennings said that he had gotten so wrapped up in the hypothetical questions that he had lost sight of his journalistic duty to remain detached. As Jennings said he agreed with Wallace, everyone else in the room seemed to regard the two of them with horror. Retired Air Force general Brent Scowcroft, who had been Gerald Ford’s national security advisor and would soon serve in the same job for George Bush, said it was simply wrong to stand and watch as your side was slaughtered. “What’s it worth?” he asked Wallace bitterly. “It’s worth thirty seconds on the evening news, as opposed to saving a platoon.” Ogletree turned to Wallace. What about that? Shouldn’t the reporter have said something? Wallace gave his most disarming grin, shrugged his shoulders and spread his palms wide in a “Don’t ask me!” gesture, and said, “I don’t know.” He was mugging to the crowd in such a way that he got a big laugh-the first such moment of the discussion. Wallace paused to enjoy the crowd’s reaction. Jennings, however, was all business, and was still concerned about the first answer he had given. “I wish I had made another decision,” Jennings said, as if asking permission to live the last five minutes over again. “I would like to have made his decision"-that is, Wallace’s decision to keep on filming. A few minutes later Ogletree turned to George M. Connell, a Marine colonel in full uniform, jaw muscles flexing in anger, with stress on each word, Connell looked at the TV stars and said, “I feel utter . . . contempt. " Two days after this hypothetical episode, Connell Jennings or Wallace might be back with the American forces — and could be wounded by stray fire, as combat journalists often had been before. The instant that happened he said, they wouldn’t be “just journalists” any more. Then they would drag them back, rather than leaving them to bleed to death on the battlefield. “We’ll do it!” Connell said. “And that is what makes me so contemptuous of them. Marines will die going to get … a couple of journalists.” The last few words dripped with disgust.

The interview above occurred in 1987, and the Armed Liberal counts this as the turning point whereafter reporters were reporters first, citizens second.

The attitude that Mike Wallace espouses I find almost incomprehensible. In fact, the only framework I can use to understand it is one where the reporter like Mike Wallace actually sees themselves as an adversary to America. How else could you be willing to allow, through your own inaction, other Americans to walk into an ambush and be slaughtered? The current liberal mindset is that reporters should be neutral third parties to what they’re reporting (sure, our reporters are neutral!). But I can’t see how that’s possible when the reporter is also an American citizen, reporting on a conflict in which America is one of the parties. I’m reminded of the fact that in general surgeons don’t operate on their own relatives, because they know that remaining objective in those circumstances is nearly impossible. Ditto with the reporters, I think. And who says they should be neutral, anyway? What’s wrong with reporters for the American press being pro-American? Who made that rule?

Personally, I wish we had a lot more Michael Yon-style reporting, and a lot less of the liberal blather that passes for reporting in the lamestream media. I have read every word that Michael Yon has published, and I’m hungry for more of the same. From him I get direct, blunt reporting of what it’s actually like on the ground in Iraq. He actually goes out with the troops — instead of hiding out in the Green Zone, like most reporters in Iraq. I’ve never caught him spinning a story in a pro-American way. He reports the facts as he sees them, and then tells you how he feels about those facts. I don’t mind hearing his feelings, so long as I’ve first heard the facts. The lamestream media, on the other hand, selectively reports the things they think I should hear, often twisting the facts in the first place — and then offers up their commentary as if it were fact as well. They think we’re all sheep who need to be herded in some direction; Michael Yon thinks we’re adults who can handle the straight scoop.

And if Michael Yon (who, BTW, has a Special Forces background) is man enough to pick up a rifle and engage America’s enemy while he’s reporting, I have no quarrel with that. In fact, quite the opposite: I admire his courage, and I admire the straightforward way that he reported the incident and his own thinking about it…

Gray Lady Sinking

Remember the bombshell reporting by the New York Times, revealing that the Bush administration was eavesdropping on conversations between Americans (citizens or residents) and suspected Al Qaeda members? The allegation from the Times was that this eavesdropping ("spying") was illegal, as it was conducted without warrants.

Well, things have gotten a little complicated for the Gray Lady. First, it turns out that most Americans have much more common sense when it comes to security than your average liberal elite — as President Bush said, if someone is talking to Al Qaeda, we want to know why and we want to know what they said. Duh! Next, it turns out that the supposedly illegal eavesdropping is in fact arguably completely legal, under the President’s power to conduct a war. In fact, many other Presidents have exercised this power, and aggressively defended its use — including those liberal icons and heroes to the New York Times: Presidents Dhimmy Carter and BJ Clinton. Oops!

The Democrats, after trying to use the NSA wiretaps as partisan political weaponry, are now in full retreat on the issue. One suspects they may have heard from their collective constituencies that they were about to saw off vital parts of the Democratic body politic. Democrats are now calling for the continuence of the NSA wiretap program (hard to fathom, after their rhetoric of the past few weeks!). They’d like to have Congressional control of the program, of course. Let’s hope the administration doesn’t fall for that one!

But the Gray Lady now has other problems. The biggest one is that their reporting was illegal. We have laws against the leaking of classified information, and we have laws against the knowing reporting of classified information, no matter what the source of it was. The New York Times is under investigation by the FBI, pursuant to these alleged (but rather obvious) violations of the law. And its reporters are likely to be called before a grand jury to testify about how they obtained the information — their sources, in other words. Oops.

The Times' executive editor had this to say:

From the New York Times (2/12/2006):

Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, said no one at the paper had been contacted in connection with the investigation, and he defended the paper’s reporting.

"Before running the story we gave long and sober consideration to the administration’s contention that disclosing the program would damage the country’s counterterrorism efforts,” Mr. Keller said. “We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised national security."

As Dafydd at Big Lizards points out in a great roundup and commentary on this topic, that’s quite a interesting legal defense Keller posits. Dafydd calls it the “I don’t believe it!” defense. This is like someone stealing my car and then saying they committed no crime, because they weren’t convinced that they’d stolen it. Humbug.

I am greatly cheered by this development, and I hope the Bush administration pursues this to the point of obtaining convictions and sentences — both for the leakers, whoever those twits may be, and for the sanctimonious reporters who thought they were above the law. This would be a really good lesson for those liberals (or just generally anti-administration folks) who think they can, without consequences, commit acts that harm this nation in order to pursue their political agendas. Yup, that would be a good lesson.

The assertion, which Keller repeats above, that revealing the NSA wiretapping didn’t compromise security is utter nonsense that has been soundly demolished by many commentators. To believe otherwise, you’d either have to believe that Al Qaeda was so stupid that they’d continue making those calls even after finding out (thanks to the Gray Lady) that they were being listened to, or you’d have to believe that the NSA was so stupid that they were listening to conversations for no reason. In all other cases, revealing the existence of the NSA wiretapping program causes America real harm, as it removes a valuable source of intelligence information — and makes it easier for Al Qaeda to operate against us, securely.

What do you call an American who aids an enemy who is fighting America? A traitor, that’s what. And in my book, that’s exactly what the New York Times has shown itself to be…