November 29, 2007
by Donald G. Mashburn
You would think that without exception we would all be united in our opposition to a nuclear Iran. You would think our memories would be permanently seared by the horrors inflicted on innocent people on our own soil on that horrible day we call “9/11.”
And you would think we would still hold clear images of Saddam Hussein’s atrocities against fellow Iraqis, the barbaric beheadings of those murdered by fanatical Islamic extremists, and the insanely evil suicide bombings of innocent civilians, including children, by even crazier Islamofascist terrorists.
You would think all that, but you would be wrong. For as sad as it seems, not everyone in this Land of the Free is willing to take a strong position against Iran and others who are obviously out to harm us, and eliminate us if possible.
Those from the far left of our political spectrum are more interested in opposing our president on every possible issue than in combating Iranian threats to Israel, Mid-East stability, and even our own way of life.
They seem blind to the extremism of radical Islamists, who think they’re justified in murdering whole crowds of innocent civilians just so the terrorists can go to their “reward” in paradise, according to their delusional beliefs.
But to realists, nuclear weapons in the hands of unbalanced jihadists, led by an irrational, unbalanced leader represent dimensions of horror never imagined with a Hitler, or even a Saddam Hussein.
There’s plenty to fear from a nuclear Iran. It would put the entire Middle East in an even more unstable configuration. It would give the less-than-stable Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad more leverage in making life more miserable and uncertain for the United States and other nations that might qualify as our friends. And it would be a grave threat to Israel.
A nuclear Iran would bring greatly heightened fears in Israel, and might lead to preemptive action by the Israelis. In the event Israel felt forced to take action against Iran, it would also be faced with threats not only from Iran but also from Syria, with additional missile attacks from the Palestinian areas of Gaza and the West Bank, and Lebanon.
Russia and China are also part of the specter of danger that hangs over the Middle East. The two nations have not been friends of the U.S., and would not be active peacemakers if they thought any instability would bleed or tie-down the U.S. in ways that would benefit our old Cold War adversaries.
China and Russia don’t fear a nuclear Iran, and Russia has found Iran a convenient and lucrative customer for its nuclear technology.
Here at home, the anti-Bush lefties seem to be in league with America’s detractors, in that they seem to welcome any development that embarrasses Bush, and that demonstrates to the world the limitations of the U.S. as the world’s only true superpower.
The more vociferous administration critics on the left ignore and even scoff at warnings by Bush and other American leaders about Iran’s nuclear potential. But no sane, clear-thinking person would claim that a nuclear Iran would be a positive development for the Middle East or for the world. Yet there are politicians on the left in Washington who would rather spite Bush than heed his warnings about Iran.
If these Bush-battlers are able to cloud issues enough during the coming elections, American voters might be led into making decisions that, in the years ahead, could have extremely severe consequences for the U.S. and the Free World.
We can only hope that voters can see through the dust and smoke, and be able to discern which candidate has his feet solidly on the ground of reality and can make decisions that are best for the U.S. and our continued freedom.
Message to Democrats - Where Do We Go From Here?
by Jack L. Key
Well, we’ve been listening to you for months now Ms. Clinton, John Edwards, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, Murtha, Kennedy and all the rest about how bad President Bush is, about the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, and about how wonderful each of you are. And how great it will be for us when you win it all.
Let’s see. You’re going to socialize medicine with Ms. Clinton’s schemes, give every “poor” kid who’s daddy makes 80 grand a year free insurance, end the “wars” in central Asia and Middle East, quit fighting and bring the troops home, but support the troops anyway and give them all new battle gear.
You intend to appoint a new Attorney General who will close ol’ Gitmo, give all the bad boys there new ditty bags to get them back home without punishment for attacking and killing American GIs.
Am I right so far?
You’re going to “fix” everything the current administration (and Vice President Cheney and Attorney General Gonzales) did wrong, bring “spy” Valerie Plame in from the cold, raise taxes and fund a bundle of new “programs.” You’re going to stop the slide of new home sales, make the dollar good again and send all government contracts for equipment and weapons to the good ol’ boys in China to build for us (and outlaw recalls).
Immigration and illegal aliens will no longer be a problem because you’ll open the borders and give the folks already here citizenship and free social, legal and food services. Bring everybody up here for free goodies if they want to be Yankees.
Castro and Hugo will be big brothers to us all, the ding in North Korea will get a free ride, and the dong in Iran will get his, er, nukes. And you’ll see to it Mr. Putin will never again get his feelings hurt by mean Americans who want to protect Europeans and themselves from the bad boys in Iran by building new missile defenses there.
But WHOA! I think it’s time we heard exactly how Democrats plan to do all these good things for us. Give us specifics. Those things we haven’t heard from anyone yet. We’ve heard enough mud slinging, lies and false promises from democrats for so long you thought we’d never ask HOW, didn’t you? But let’s think for a moment about the world you’ve laid out for us, and I’ve just described.
First of all it won’t pass muster. Second, Republicans in Congress aren’t that stupid. Reid and Pelosi have had THE POWER for a while now. Let the record show there IS no record. The last Democrat to hold the presidency in the ‘90’s fiddled around with terrorist attacks in New York City and elsewhere with no success to speak of, but fiddled around with Ms. Lewinsky in the anteroom with some success. So Bin Laden said let’s hit the World Trade Center again on 9/11, 2001.
So where do we go from here? Democrats will have all the liberal news media on their side in the upcoming fisticuffs called elections. Hollywood will embrace all their little darlings on the left. The Evening News Gurus will beat the Republican candidate senseless, and “presidential debates” will be one-sided affairs, PBS and CNN will see to that.
But thankfully we won’t have to endure more tales of military bravado from the Democratic candidate, because I don’t think any of them have served their country, either in peace or war this time around, have they?
Is this gonna be it then?
Nope. The American voter will have the last say. And we seem to have gotten it right now for over 300 years. That little item is where we’ll go from here.
And nobody does it better.
Jack L. Key is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (www.thenma.org), a published author and freelance writer. He may be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org
The Front Lines of Pseudo-Journalism
By Nathan Tabor
Traditional journalism has been so battered that it can hardly afford to receive another black eye. Remember the CBS Evening Snooze and the Dan Rather debacle regarding President George W. Bush's National Guard service? "Just the facts, ma'am" has been replaced by the mantra, "All sensation, all the time."
And there's nothing some members of the mainstream media like better than a salacious story about the troops in Iraq. A sorry example of that was the New Republic which ran a hot series by a soldier operating under the pen name "Scott Thomas." The articles spoke of an Iraqi boy making friends with the Americans, then having his tongue slashed by insurgents. Hard-hearted soldiers in Iraq make fun of a disfigured woman; animal-hating GIs use armored personnel carriers to mow down dogs.
Such stories may make great copy, but the Army says that, as told in the New Republic, they simply weren't true. The whistle-blower, in this case, was the conservative Weekly Standard magazine. In an example of virtual democracy at work, the magazine dared bloggers to uncover the truth behind the liberal New Republic's dispatches.
Meanwhile, the military probe showed that all the soldiers from his unit countered the allegations made by Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, the author of the articles. The Weekly Standard reported that Beauchamp eventually swore that the articles represented falsehoods.
Unfortunately, people with a penchant for publicity may be tempted to exaggerate. And the temptation can prove irresistible when there's a magazine around that's salivating at the chance to cast U.S. military efforts in Iraq in the most unflattering light possible. Still, some important lessons are emerging from this journalistic travesty.
To begin with, despite the efforts of some media outlets to discredit our military, the Army is not always wrong. In fact, it may be right quite a bit of the time. Also, the mainstream media's opposition to the war can lead to a kind of ideological blindness that makes it possible for articles with little credibility to appear within the pages of mainstream magazines.
Further, conservatives have more credibility than many rank-and-file journalists would have you believe. After all, conservatives were the ones who called into question Beauchamp's dispatches.
Moreover, even some members of the Fourth Estate are tiring of the slipshod way that some journalists are operating these days. Fox News reported that Bob Steele of a prestigious institute for journalists in Florida said that giving a writer anonymity "raises questions about authenticity and legitimacy." Steele also noted that anonymity permits the writer to "sidestep essential accountability."
We've seen it at CBS News, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, where supposedly groundbreaking stories proved, in the end, to be false. Inaccuracies and liberal bias have made journalism's old guard antiquated and ineffective. That's why the future belongs to the bloggers, where the goal is simply to report the truth, rather than the sensationalized fantasies of the media elite.