Friday, July 01, 2005

NBC - "Nothing But Communists"

After a report regarding the new terrorist president that Iran "elected", Brian Williams, the N(othing) B(ut) C(ommunists) succesor to Tom Brokaw on "NBC Nightly News", had the stones to make this anti-American commentary ...

"What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called 'terrorists' by the British crown, after all."

I await an apology from "Mr." Williams ... and either his resignation or firing.

Contact NBC to demand same here.

You can also mail a letter to:
NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112

One MSNBC Plaza
Secaucus, N.J. 07094



Brian Williams has issued a non-apology apology.

July 1, 2005 5:04 p.m. EDT

And on this busy day I'm compelled to throw in a personal note of my own... it's about a question I asked Andrea Mitchell on Nightly News last night. Coming out of the story alleging that Iran's President-elect may have been among those who kept 52 Americans hostage for 444 days in Tehran, I asked Andrea the following question:

"What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today: The first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries... and might have been called "terrorists" at the time by the BRITISH CROWN, after all..."

Today, apparently, on some radio talk shows and blogs, my friends in the media have accused me of labeling George Washington a terrorist. They apparently missed my point: That the BRITISH CROWN might have viewed American revolutionaries that way.

My question — and specifically the line, "what would it all matter..." was meant to address the popular support within Iran for those who acted against the U.S. and are now in positions of power. Those of you who are regular readers of our blog know we spoke about this very issue yesterday in our afternoon editorial meeting.

All I ask is that people re-read what was said on the air. I've talked to several viewers today, and one conversation I actually enjoyed was with a woman from Virginia, who said, "These days, you just can't use the word TERRORIST for anything but a TERRORIST." And I take this nice woman's point about the power of words in our current climate.

While I insist that a re-reading of my question will prove that in no way was I calling the framers "terrorists" (for starters, the word did not exist 229 years ago), I regret that anyone thought that after a life spent reading and loving American history, I had suddenly changed my mind about the founders of our nation.

To all: I hope you can join us for the broadcast tonight. Have a wonderful weekend and a spectacular July 4th.

OK ... let's "re-read" his comments.

What would it all matter (what would it matter if a terrorist cut off yours and your familys heads and broadcast the video internationally?) if proven true? (since when does the MSM worry about truth before going off on a story?) Someone (you mean YOU?) brought up today: The first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries (they were revolutionaries and patriots ... yes) ... and might have been called "terrorists" at the time by the BRITISH CROWN, after all...

No Brian ...

terrorist - adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

terrorism - One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal.

Intentional violence against civilians (noncombatants) is the type of action most widely condemned as "terrorism"

(The Revolutionaries employed -) Guerrilla warfare is sometimes confused with terrorism, in that a relatively small force attempts to achieve large goals by using organized acts of directed violence against a larger force. (the word "force" here defines as a uniformed military unit). But in contrast to terrorism, these acts are almost always against military targets, and civilian targets are minimized in an attempt to increase public support.

Bottom line is that the UNIFORMED MILITARY fighting the revolutionary war did NOT target CIVILIANS. (the same cannot be said for the "BRITISH CROWN, after all...")

In that case Mr. Williams ... maybe you would like to call King George and HIS military "terrorists" (even though the word did not exist at that time)?

Another word that didn't exist at that time is "terrorist sympathizer" ...

Listed on BlogShares