Go. Just Go Already.

1. Eason Jordan. Last seen covering up for Saddam's atrocities in order to keep a CNN bureau open in Baghdad, Jordan now makes the unsubstantiated claim that the American military has targeted and killed 12 journalists in Iraq:

During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-US crowd) and cause great strain on others.

Due to the nature of the forum, I was able to directly challenge Eason, asking if he had any objective and clear evidence to backup these claims, because if what he said was true, it would make Abu Ghraib look like a walk in the park. David Gergen was also clearly disturbed and shocked by the allegation that the U.S. would target journalists, foreign or U.S. He had always seen the U.S. military as the providers of safety and rescue for all reporters.

Eason seemed to backpedal quickly, but his initial statements were backed by other members of the audience (one in particular who represented a worldwide journalist group). The ensuing debate was (for lack of better words) a real "sh--storm". What intensified the problem was the fact that the session was a public forum being taped on camera, in front of an international crowd. The other looming shadow on what was going on was the presence of a U.S. Congressman and a U.S. Senator in the middle of some very serious accusations about the U.S. military.

2. Ward Churchill. Read this bastard's sick essay here:

"Some People Push Back"
On the Justice of Roosting Chickens

[He's talking about 9-11, folks.]

...

On the morning of September 11, 2001, a few more chickens – along with some half-million dead Iraqi children – came home to roost in a very big way at the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center. Well, actually, a few of them seem to have nestled in at the Pentagon as well.
...

There may be a real utility to reflecting further, this time upon the fact that it was pious Americans who led the way in assigning the onus of collective guilt to the German people as a whole, not for things they as individuals had done, bur for what they had allowed – nay, empowered – their leaders and their soldiers to do in their name.

If the principle was valid then, it remains so now, as applicable to Good Americans as it was the Good Germans. And the price exacted from the Germans for the faultiness of their moral fiber was truly ghastly. ...

Meet the "Terrorists"

... The most that can honestly be said of those involved on September 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course.

That they waited so long to do so is, notwithstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint.

They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."

There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .

Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

...

"You've got to learn, " the line went, "that when you push people around, some people push back."

As they should.

As they must.

And as they undoubtedly will.

There is justice in such symmetry.

All emphases added.

Incidentally, on the Brit Hume report tonight, this cocksucker said that the fact that his job was now on the line -- that there was a furor over these viciously treacherous remarks -- that people were expressing their disgust with him -- constituted, get this, "terrorism" against him.

Get that?

Bombing the WTC wasn't terrorism.

Getting this fuckbag denied tenure, on the other hand, is terrorism.

I've fucking had it. Free speech and all that, but there is a fucking line. And when you actively root for America's enemies, and give them aid and succor, you've fucking crossed it.

You don't like this country? Then be a man, grow a pair, and get the fuck out.

I'm not suggesting we prosecute you. I'm not saying we should lock you up.

I'm suggesting you have the courage of your lack of convictions and just fucking go already.

Voluntarily. Leave. Get the fuck out. Go somewhere where it won't be treasonous to defend the mass-murder of 2800 Americans. You know-- like, hint-hint, Canada.

Or just go to one of those foreign third-world paradises you're forever fucking nattering on about, you effete cocksucking traitors.

But wherever you go, just go.

Get. The Fuck. Out.

Go already. You don't like America; let me presume to speak on behalf of America and be the first to tell you the feeling is eminently mutual.

Let's admit this relationship just isn't working and part on civil terms, yes-yes?

posted by Ace at 03:21 AM

| Access Comments