Hmmmm, I'm not a "conservative" but Beth Harwell is?!?!?! And I have never, ever "tong" lashed anybody.
Those who are defending Mr. Assange on the basis that he hasn't done any real harm should consider the fact that releasing our soldiers' social security numbers; revealing tactics and strategies for our conduct of warfare on the battlefield; exposing the technical details of electronics our soldiers use to keep roadside bombs from exploding that enables terrorists to subvert that technology and kill our sons and daughters; revealing the names of those providing us information in Afghanistan, etc. that puts those informants and their familes at risk and deprives us of access to information that might keep our soldiers from being ambushed by terrorists and their allies; are all very specific ways that Wikileaks has in fact harmed us, our soldiers and our interests. This is not just about the release of embarassing diplomatic gossip. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/opinion/…
I never claimed Mr. Assange committed treason. In fact the blog post that started this whole thing stated specifically that the AMERICANS at the State Department and in the military who leaked the documents should be tried for Treason and face the death penalty, as assessment that General Bing West has made as well (among others). I have pointed out that Assange is a terrorist, not a traitor. The clip of my comments included on Channel 4 is pretty explicit in calling for Assange to either be apprehended and detained at GITMO or killed, the same policy we have for other infamous terrorists. He is not hiding in a cave in Pakistan and should indeed be a lot easier to find and kill, if he doesn't turn himself in voluntarily after the terrorist designation is applied and the kill or capture order issued by the President, just as similar orders have been issued for guys presumably hiding in caves in Pakistan. And the idea that Wikileaks is not soliciting stolen secrets if ridiculous. That is exactly what they are asking people to provide to them, so the "defense" that they have not done so is the sort of thing that only an "academic" who is completely disconnected with reality would assert on their behalf.
The Scene uses selective portions from a television newscast to hype their story. And Channel 4 used selective clips as well. I specifically pointed out the distinction between terrorism and treason; they either didn't understand the distinction or chose to blur it themselves.
The funny thing is that the same liberals so hysterical over my comments have not expressed similar concern over a liberal President who is actually issuing orders to kill people who have caused less damage and harm than Assange. But liberal outrage is so selective, sort of like the NYT publishing decisions.
By the way, the fact that the NY Times publishes the stolen private cables and emails produced by Wikileaks (which are harmful to U.S. interests and puts American lives at risk) but was unwilling to publish emails proving the fraud of "global warming" just a few months ago reveals the hypocrisy of the high-minded Leftist media. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010…
Assange is soliciting and distributing stolen secret government information; in fact that is the entire purpose of the Wikileaks model. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-09-0… And his first set of leaks of military information, including troop movements, strategies and the names of informants working with coalition forces in Afghanistan has almost certainly resulted in the death of those whose names HE revealed to the Al Queda and Taliban terrorists. Why should American Taliban terrorist Adam Gadahn be on a "kill or capture" list (as approved by President Obama) and Assange we given a pass for perhaps more dangerous and deadly assistance to the terrorists than Mr. Gadahn's videos? We are killing terrorists (and anybody standing near them) with drones in Pakistan and Afgahnistan without a trial or determination of their guilt other than Obama's approval. Is Obama a "terrorist" too by issuing his 'fatwas' against those deemed as terrorists?
For the full context of my point, with actual links to relevant facts and without the hysterical embellishment of WSMV and the Scene, click here: http://gillreport.com/2010/11/should-the-u…
As usual Woods tells PART of the story, even when he is selectively quoting his own sources. In response to his question about whether a failure of Wamp or Ramsey to defeat Haslam would be a failure of conservative ideology I pointed out that money tends to win in politics, particularly when you have a divided conservative base. I gave him several other examples of big money winning in Tennessee, including Bill Brock, Phil Bredesen, Bill Frist and Bob Corker. Huge money has a tendency to trump indeology, and not just in this particular primary.
And as for "dissing" the Tea Party I made the specific point that some of the Tea Party organization endorsements would not translate into wide grassroots impact because some of them are a handful of people who declare themselves to be the Tea Party of Whereever and that in many cases there are not followers to the so-called leaders. The movement itself is NOT about being a member of the organization or some club, it is about ideology and connection to a cause. Thus the Tea Party is not new in Tennessee because the horn-honkers were a precursor...and did not involve into "organizations" built on personality or the development of a third party. Instead, the hornhonkers moved the GOP into majorities in the State House and State Senate with the primary gains coming in the ring counties around Nashville where the horn-honkers were most abundant. The horn-honker and tea party people remain remarkably powerful in Tennessee, but it doesn't require self appointed, and in some cases self focused, leaders who sometimes hurt the cause they supposedly promote.
Yep, there haven't been any mosques in the U.S. producing any terrorists at all...unless you count the 9-11 terrorists, the Christmas underwear bomber, Faisal "the Times Square Bomber", or Maj. Malik Nidal Hasan...all of who were affiliated with radical mosques in the U.S. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=…
The point is that you need to follow the money and see if a mosque is tied to the radical funding or not. The Murfreesboro mosque has not revealed where their money is coming from to fund this multimillion dollar expansion. And the media is more intent on misrepresenting the issue, as Woods has done, rather than asking the simple question: "where is the money coming from?"
The SouthComm Set
The City Paper |
LEO Weekly |
Medical News Papers
All contents © 1995-2013
City Press LLC, 210 12th Ave. S., Ste. 100, Nashville, TN 37203. (615) 244-7989.
All rights reserved. No part of this service may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of City Press LLC,
except that an individual may download and/or forward articles via email to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes.
Powered by Foundation