Originally posted on June 25, 2006.

^.^

The Liberal media types have demonstrated that they are anti-American, and more specifically, anti-Bush. Anything that harms this country, or anything that might bring down the Bush administration, the Liberalistas thoroughly enjoy.

For example, in the United States, we have no problem referring to the fight against Osama bin Laden and his AL Qaeda cohorts as the War on Terror. No fooling around...no ambiguity...the context we are putting forward is pretty clear.

However, if you listen to the BBC, you will hear things like "America's war on terror," "the Bush Administration's war on terror," or "the so-called war on terror." It's as if not only did the attacks on September 11, 2001 not happen, but apparently, neither did the attacks in Bali, Madrid, and London, just to name a few. These sorts of things make me wonder whether the British media realizes that they too are involved in what President Bush has called the WORLDWIDE War on Terror. When the BBC uses the sorts of phrases that they do, they undermine our own efforts, because they fail to provide a united front against our mutual enemy. Not only this, but any effort to show the other side of the story...to show that the insurgents have their point against the "occupation forces" simply lends aid and comfort to the enemy.

However, the BBC can almost be forgiven. After all, they see themselves as cultured, and they see themselves as acting within the boundaries of objectivity. There are no such shelters given to the Liberal media in the United States.

The Liberal media has made their money on supporting Liberalistas in government, whether they were doing a good job or not...in fact, in some cases, the office holder barely needed to be competant to gain the support of the Liberal media.

To say that the Liberals were dismayed at the outcome of the election in 2000 would be an understatement of titanic proportions...in fact, that's why they spent a month trying to have recount after recount on top of recount after recount, because no matter what they did, they could not find enough hanging chads to give the election to Al Gore.

This is the basis for the Liberal hatred of President George W. Bush...the idea that he "stole" the election, and that he was not legitimate. Even the election of 2004 did nothing to change this...once again, Liberals screamed that the vote in Ohio had been stolen.

September 11, 2001 gave Liberals virtually nothing to move with. After all, the attack had happened on Bush's watch, and both he and the administration were quick to rally around the flag, and the hated fumes of patriotism were so thick in the air that the Patriot Act managed to get by both chambers of Congress and was signed by the President. Even the attack on Afghanistan could not be used by Liberals at the time it was launched...it was a largely successful war that got rid of the regime that harbored Osama bin Laden.

Iraq has been different. Despite all of the evidence presented by the administration to the contrary, Liberals have refused to believe that Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda, they refuse to believe that he had weapons of mass destruction, and if it would have kept Bush from attacking, the Liberalistas would have said that Saddam was a nice guy who never oppressed his people, and was never a danger to his neighbors.

Since the US-led invasion of Iraq, and the overthrow of Saddam, the Liberal media has not missed one instance where they could blame the US or the Bush administration for some wrong. The death toll among Iraqi civilians was too high, the treatment of prisoners at Abu Graib was torture, the treatment of prisoners ar Guantanamo Bay is torture, the government is spying on arabs in the United States, and so on and so on. If the US forces in Iraq were to clean up the country tonight, if the Iraqi government were solidified, and if US forces were in the air on their way home, the Liberalistas would find some way to blame some small part of it on Bush.

As if the recent leaking of telephone monitoring was not enough, the New York Times released details on Bush administration monitoring of an international banking system, that tracks the transfer of money across international borders. This fact is important. The SWIFT system only keeps track of monetary transactions if they cross an international border...so when I write a check to pay my utility bill, SWIFT is not going to see it. If I pay rent on a condo in Abu Dhabi, then SWIFT will make note of it.

The Liberalistas have jumped all over this story, crying out that Americans' rights are being violated once again by an administration that is too secretive, an administration that wants to know private details of citizens' lives, an administration that is over-reaching, an administration that has lost the focus in the War on Terror and really should be continuing the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

Except, as has been pointed out in several Conservative media outlets, the information carried by SWIFT is *NOT* private information. It is about money transactions between banks! Person A in Bank A sends money to person B in Bank B. Bank A wipes the money from their books, and sends a note to SWIFT informing Bank B to add the money to their books.

The United States used "broad subpoenas" to gain access to the SWIFT records, which show the name and address of known terrorists who are using international banking to move money around the world. In other words, the Feds were acting legally in gaining these records which allowed them to keep tabs on terrorists and their money.

With the outing of this program, it is likely that the terrorists will try to switch their money transfers to some form that does not use the international banking system. This may be a bit hard considering the reach and scope of the international banking system, but now that they know that it is one of the ways that we track them, they will probably try to avoid the system.

The Liberalistas and the media have taken a tool that the government has been using in the War on Terror and thrown it away. It is one thing for the BBC to sit in London and be delusional about somehow being a safe distance away from the global War on Terror.

It is quite another thing to be an American newspaper that is doing their best to aid the enemy.

---
John B.
Blog Guy

BACK