Exposing the GI Fifth Column, Again

This really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone, but the NY Times has now joined the astroturfing campaign to create a perception that there is a “growing” movement in the military to oppose the war in Iraq. If you haven’t read about the astroturfing campaign then you really need to read my prior posting on Exposing the GI Fifth Column, before reading any further because you probably won’t understand half the things I’m about to talk about.

In this NY Times column they continue the media campaign to create an image of this “growing” anti-war movement in the military:

In a small but growing sign of dissent, a group of active-duty military personnel and reservists, including many who have served in Iraq, is denouncing the war and asking Congress for the prompt withdrawal of troops.

The service members, who number more than 1,600, have sent an Appeal for Redress to their Congressional representatives, a form of protest permitted by military rules. Most of those who signed the appeal, at www.appealforredress.org, are enlisted soldiers in the Army, from the lowest to the highest ranks.

(…)

The protest, which was started in October by two active-duty service members and is sponsored by three antiwar groups, initially drew 65 signatures, growing to more than 1,300 by February. This week, after the CBS News program 60 Minutes reported on the appeal, about 300 more active-duty soldiers joined the campaign, said Petty Officer Third Class Jonathan Hutto of the Navy, a co-founder of the group behind the appeal.

Look who has popped up again our man Jonathan Hutto. Notice no mention in the NY Times column about Hutto’s past Amnesty International and anti-war activities prior to enlisting. Also notice no mention was made of the fact that a real grassroots effort to counter the Appeal for Redress fifth column by the milblogs, Appeal for Courage, has nearly equaled their petition. Appeal for Courage has only been active for two weeks and does not have access to big money, the largest liberal public relations firm, 200 newspapers, CBS, Yahoo, and now the NY Times backing it like Appeal for Redress has. Plus Appeal for Redress has been active since last October. The real “growing” movement is Appeal for Courage which is something that will never grace the pages of the NY Times.

Now let’s take a look at who else is mentioned in the article:

There is a sense of betrayal, said Specialist Linsay Burnett, 26, who recently returned from Iraq with the First Brigade combat team of the 101st Airborne Division, based at Fort Campbell, on the border of Kentucky and Tennessee. The division is readying for its third deployment.

These soldiers stand up to fight, to protect their country, but we are now on the fifth reason as to why it is we are in Iraq, added Specialist Burnett, who has served as a public affairs specialist and as a military journalist focusing primarily on the infantry. How many reasons are we going to come up with for keeping us over there?

A new name, Specialist Linsay Burnett, so who exactly is this person that is able to get quoted in the NY Times? Via great work from Blackfive we now know exactly who Linsay Burnett really is:

With the exception of this year’s freshman class, odds are good that everyone else on campus has already met or at least seen senior Linsay Rousseau Burnett. Between her role as Student Assembly president, her numerous on-campus activities and her various off-campus responsibilities, Linsay has become one of the College’s most recognizable students.

Linsay has worked with the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance and the Student Environmental Activist Coalition since her freshman year and credits part of her devotion to these causes to the influence of her parents.

“I’ve always been a feminist. My parents raised me that way, and women’s issues have always been important to me,” Linsay said. “[In addition,] my parents are both environmentalists. They work for the National Park Service. Environmental issues are something we can’t ignore, although we try to, especially when there are so many things around here we could change.”

The Tidewater Labor Support Committee is another organization that Linsay has been involved in since her freshman year. She has involved herself extensively with the Living Wage campaign, although the William and Mary Union has lately taken on many of the students’ former duties.

“We’ve accomplished a lot, but we’re not done,” Linsay said. “Now we serve as a voice for the campus.”

Last year Linsay co-founded and co-directed the College branch of Amnesty International, an organization for which she has worked in the past.

“We still have a ways to go [with the organization], but there are some really good people who have taken over leadership this year who will make sure the organization grows and makes a name for itself on campus,” Linsay said.

Imagine that, another Amnesty International member suddenly enlisting into the military after the war in Iraq was already launched. Then both of them just happened to be part of the same “growing” anti-war movement in the military and coincidentally just happened to be quoted together in a NY Times column.

Let’s look further into SPC Burnett’s past like what she was doing right after 9/11:

A group of over 10 students from the College of William and Mary will fast for 56 hours beginning Nov. 7 at 9 a.m. to protest U.S. bombings in Afghanistan. Their protest is part of the “Fast for Peace,” an event taking place simultaneously at colleges nationwide.

Sophomore Amy Smith and junior Derek Bishop, the campus coordinators for the event, along with fellow protesters, will be wearing white armbands to symbolize their solidarity as they begin their liquid-only fast.

“I am outraged by the travesty that occurred on Sept. 11, and my thoughts and prayers are with all of the victims’ families,” Smith said. “However, to respond by killing people, we are committing the same crime that we abhor. As a nation, we seek peace and security, and acts of violence will never be capable of restoring security.”

During the fast, the protesters will be willing to answer questions and explain their actions and beliefs, according to Smith. Smith and Bishop heard about the fast from friends at other colleges and began researching how to involve the College.

“There are currently 10 people that will definitely be fasting, but the list is progressively growing as we get the word out,” junior Linsay Burnett, a participant of the fast, said.

Interesting, let’s dig even deeper into SPC Burnett’s past. Here you can see how on January 24, 2003, less than two months before the beginning of the Iraq War she suddenly resigns as the student assembly president and withdraws from college due to “medical circumstances”:

“Due to medical circumstances, I am withdrawing from school and cannot continue to serve as your president. However, our school needs a strong student voice now more than ever. The cabinet is completely capable of continuing its work in my absence, and this is what I hope they will be able to do. Due to our rather elusive constitution (a new one will take effect next year), it is possible that a new election will be held, a new cabinet picked and all the work from this year wasted. With this unfortunate timing, the work of the newly elected administration could not even take off before the elections in April.

Her “medical circumstances” were serious enough for her to drop out of college, but she is suddenly miraculously healed and wants to serve her country when just a few years prior after 9/11 she was protesting and fasting in response to the US bombings in Afghanistan. I guess anything is possible.

So what did she have to say while deployed in Iraq you might wonder? Well this is what she had to say in December 2005:

Ralph Nader voters are not as scarce in the Army as you might think. I’ve actually met two in previous trips to Iraq. Spc. Linsay Burnett was the third. But that was just the beginning. Burnett, a 2003 graduate of the College of William & Mary, is probably the least likely soldier I have ever met. What caught my attention was that she was reading Johnny Got His Gun, a classic antiwar novel of World War I. Then it turned out that she was a Nader supporter, vegetarian, labor organizer, founder of an Amnesty International chapter, and former war protester. Not the typical model of a modern soldier.

At the time of the initial invasion, Burnett thought it was a mistake.

“When it first happened,” she says, “I was on the streets protesting with everyone else.” She says she was supportive of the effort to remove Saddam Hussein but skeptical about how America went about it.

Today, she supports the military’s efforts to help create a democracy in Iraq. She says she believes the United States is trying to teach the Iraqis useful things, trying to improve their organization–something near and dear to her heart. But she still wonders how feasible it will be to help make Iraq into a functioning democracy.

So how does she go from “she supports the military’s efforts to help create a democracy in Iraq” to “There is a sense of betrayal” now? Could it be she didn’t want to blow her cover in December 2005 and waited until becoming political active against the military when the Appeal for Redress was launched in October 2006?

Clearly since the leftist groups cannot get an anti-war movement within the ranks of the military started, they have instead decided to create the perception of one by using these plants from Amnesty International. I’m curious to how many more Amnesty International members are within the ranks? Some may wonder why someone would be willing to enlist if they fundamentally dislike the military.

Think about it, by enlisting like they have, it gives them for lack of a better word, “creditability”. So when they exit the military and begin to attack the military like they did prior to enlisting, it makes it more difficult for their opponents to criticize them when they served in the military. Granted they have picked the least dangerous jobs available, but they can still play the veteran card, which makes their opponents have to say every time “I respect your service to your country, but….”, just like critics of Murtha and Kerry have to do. This isn’t the first time that Burnett has been willing to go undercover for a cause she believes in:

Although all her unpaid activities might seem to be enough for any one person to handle, Linsay also has a job. She works as a bartender and a waitress at an exotic dance club; however, her job is part of the research that she is doing in order to write a Sociology Honors Thesis on the effects of globalization on sex workers.

“I’m researching how the economy effects how much they make, why they do what they do, and how seeing all that drips to this one little club,” Linsay said.

Like I have said before I don’t care if they want to speak out on something they believe in, what I don’t like is the dishonesty of the way they are doing it. I wouldn’t have a problem if they came clean and told everyone of their past and current affiliations like SPC Burnett did in the US News article. Why is SPC Burnett not coming clean on her past now in the NY Times article? Also the fundraising Appeal for Redress is doing is quasi illegal. Compare that to the Appeal for Courage site where there is no fundraising effort. I also have a problem with the financial and public relations backing the Appeal for Redress crew is getting through Fenton Communications.

If my website was being backed and promoted by Fox News, wouldn’t I have the moral responsibility to tell everyone that and put a logo or something on my site saying I’m a Fox News contributor? Why doesn’t Appeal for Redress put logos on their site of the people that are really behind them instead of using front groups? Because it goes against the carefully crafted image of a “grassroots” effort that Fenton Communications is trying to create. They are not a “grassroots” movement and are in fact part of a cleverly crafted campaign by Fenton Communications to create an image of “growing” dissent within the military.

The big question I am wondering is who came up with the idea to encourage these people to enlist? Was it Amnesty International’s idea of was it Fenton Communications’? Either way it is amazing to me the efforts these people are willing to go to in order to attack the military and in turn the Bush Administration. I wish Amnesty International would show this much dedication and resolve in combating human rights offensives and sexual slavery happening in China right now. How come they can’t get anyone to go undercover into China and speak out against them? Obviously because America is the easy target. Nothing is going to happen to these frauds that enlisted and if anything this enhances their career aspects within the liberal establishment.

Compare that to if they went undercover in China to report on human rights abuses there and were caught, they would end up in jail. That is why I have no respect for these people because the real human rights abusers they have no courage to confront while they gleefully go after the easy target, America.

Is it the same reason cowardly politicians, like Congressman Mike Honda attack Japan with their holier than thou campaigns and make excuses for China, because Japan is also an easy target. I would like to see Hutto, Burnett, and the rest of their crew try and do their undercover work in let’s say Chechnya or North Korea. I would then have some respect for them and Amnesty International. However, countries like China & North Korea Amnesty International will only continue to send naughty letters to, while the US military they will continue to send their undercover plants to back by a huge and elaborate media campaign. I could go on and on about the hypocrisy of these frauds, but just exposing their dishonesty should be enough for people to realize what their true agendas are.

You can read more over at Milblogs.