Here is an insightful look at a great leader from WorldNetDaily today. I thought each of you would appreciate Larry Elgin's take on Admiral Moorer.
Remembering Adm. Thomas H. Moorer
February 24, 2004
By Larry Elgin
Adm. Thomas H. Moorer is gone now, and I will miss his insightful growliness – what some of the newspaper accounts referred to as his "sternness." The accounts in the media were surprisingly few considering his stature and his achievements. He had held more high military commands than anyone before in U.S. history.
In those media accounts, there were a few characteristic backhand slaps that would undoubtedly have made him chuckle. The Washington Post, for example, with whose editors and writers Adm. Moorer was at loggerheads on more than one occasion, started off its story with the statement that he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the Vietnam War.
The Post felt obliged to note that he "advocated aggressive force to win the conflict." Those familiar with the Post will recognize this as a backhanded swipe. While accurate, its thematic placement makes it clear that those who try and win wars with aggressive force do not meet with its collective approval.
There is another such swipe further on, again accurate: "As the war in Vietnam continued, he grew frustrated with the executive branch's strategy of containment of Communist forces in the North instead of total victory. He and other military officials felt the enemy would crumble only with a convincing show of force. He spent years trying to persuade officials to mine Haiphong Harbor, a supply route for Hanoi, until it was done in 1972." Again, readers of the Post will recognize here the tacit approval of those who did not favor a "convincing show of force" as Adm. Moorer did.
The Post wound up this underlying theme of its article with mention of the abortive "Tailwind" effort by the Marxist Peter Arnett and his team to smear Adm. Moorer and the entire American military, and thus America itself and all those sworn to uphold its Constitution at the cost of their lives and sacred honor.
Instead of telling the full truth of the matter – namely that faced with a lawsuit from Adm. Moorer on the matter, CNN, after the famous internal review by the constitutional lawyer, Abrams, found the smears so baseless that it settled out of court and paid Adm. Moorer an undisclosed amount – the Post used its classic tactic of referring to the "controversy" as "much disputed." Again, those familiar with the Post know that someone like Adm. Moorer is never right and those who smear him never wrong. Even when right unequivocally prevails, the situation is only "much disputed."
Thus this story at the admiral's death noted that CNN retracted the Tailwind story, fired two producers and reprimanded Peter Arnett, but did not mention the legal backdown and settlement. And, this was only after noting that "CNN producers said Adm. Moorer confirmed the sarin gas story, but the admiral later denied independent knowledge of its use" (emphasis added). Again, note the backhandedness of the adjective. Those who saw the outtakes which CNN released as a result of the internal investigation by Mr. Abrams will recall vividly the fired producer April Oliver trying to put words in the admiral's mouth that the U.S. had used the sarin gas.
If you saw this clip, you remember Adm. Moorer very clearly replying: "You said that, I didn't." In other words, the admiral denied the use of sarin even though April Oliver made up false information that it was used and sought to badger him into admitting its use. Other media, even the New York Times, correctly reported that Adm. Moorer denied the entire smear of the manufactured story. But in the world of the Post, this clarity disappears and the admiral only denied "independent" knowledge of the incident.
Over the weekend, ABC also took note of Adm. Moorer's passing. Among other things, they showed a clip of Adm. Moorer, in full uniform, saying that he "refused to apologize" for "any public statement that I have made." The context of the statement, in the short time of the clip, was not explained. So one might assume that ABC wanted to show that the admiral was "extreme" in the view of mainstream media because he was a person who took firm stands and then did not apologize for them when criticized.
In the world of such media giants, then, taking firm stands and sticking with them is bad and giving in to their worldview is good – a policy which they cannot let go of, even in the death of a great American and true leader like Adm. Moorer.
Which leads to broader questions: Which is the real mainstream of America – standing for its Constitution and founding principles, or standing for fashionable compromise in the European mode, where a virulent reflexive opposition to that document and our founding principles prevails as "progressive"? And will the public continue to look up to those whose credo is that strong beliefs and leadership grounded in our founding are to be backhandedly slighted?