Drudge Switches Support in Terror War to al Qaeda, Taliban

On Thursday, American newsman Matt Drudge provided material support to al Qaeda and Taliban forces--the perpetrators of 9/11--by divulging highly secret information to them about NATO forces currently fighting in Afghanistan.  Specifically, Drudge revealed that Britain’s Prince Harry was serving in combat there.

With Prince Harry, his fellow troops, and the mission itself endangered on account of Drudge’s revelation, the British government immediately whisked Harry out of the country.  The effect on his unit--its cohesion, morale, and ability to sustain its mission against al Qaeda--after such an abrupt change in leadership is uncertain.  

It is not yet known how long Drudge has been providing support for al Qaeda, or whether he intends to do it again.  Similarly, it remains to be seen what, if any, other forms of aid and comfort Drudge has provided to the enemy.  However, we do know that Drudge is unrepentant.

I realize that this is no longer breaking news.  However, this story isn’t getting the attention it deserves in the U.S.  The fact is, Drudge, at the very least, should be made a global pariah.  Likewise, Americans should begin pressuring his advertisers to leave his website.  

To get the process started, I’ve compiled a list of those companies that have advertised on the Drudge Report in the past hour, though this list is by no means comprehensive.  It simply represents a snapshot of those companies that fund the undermining of NATO troops in the war against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.  I’m sure that they’ve all done so unwittingly, however, they should certainly be made aware of how their advertising dollars are being spent.

Gold’s Gym
Vonage
Chevrolet
Old Spice
T-Mobile
Netflix
Pizza Hut
Universal Orlando Resort
Bank of America
University of Phoenix
Ebay
1-800-PetMeds
Ameritrade
University of Oklahoma Press
XM Radio

Today, the 15,000 American veterans of VoteVets.org stand with both the British military and Prince Harry in our utter contempt for al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their sympathizers and supporters here in the United States, specifically Matt Drudge.
::
::
Also available at VetVoice

•  Tip jar

  I would suggest treason, but I’m not sure we could do that since he outed a British soldier, not an American one.  Thanks for reading.

  AR

  by Brandon Friedman on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:17:39 PM PDT

  •  When the treason trial begins

    save a seat for Karl too.

    by rightiswrong on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:23:22 PM PDT

  •  The British can probably try him

    considering he is a citizen of an allied nation.

    I wonder if there are examples of this from WWII, where citizens of occupied countries were prosecuted after the war for, say, handing over downed Allied pilots to the Nazis.

    by Calouste on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:24:34 PM PDT

    •  Harry's mother

      Harry's mother died trying to run away from scumbags like Drudge.

      by rightiswrong on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:35:11 PM PDT

    •  This just proves that the rightwing noise machine

      cares more about waving the flag, wearing a damn flag lapel pin and putting one those stupid yellow ribbon "suport the troops" bumper magnets on their big gas guzzling SUV's than they do about ACTUALLY SUPPORTING THE MEN & WOMEN WHO ARE FIGHTING AL-QAEDA!

      ...but I think most of us here already knew that.

      by Jeff Y on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:00:30 PM PDT

      •  Aid and Comfort to the Enemy

        I think this qualifies.

        by jeremybloom on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:05:48 PM PDT

    •  French dealt pretty harshly with collaborateurs

      at war's end. Drudge deserves the most stringent punishment possible!

      Aloha  ..  ..  ..

      by dolphin777 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:08:31 AM PDT

  •  Treason defined in US Constitution, Article 3

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

    Note that the second clause, "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" does not insist that American troops be endangered.  Betraying a British soldier or sabotaging a German field hospital is as treasonous as betraying an American soldier if the British soldier is fighting a common enemy.  

    Now, "aid and comfort" can be a very slippery phase.  More than one wingnut considers demonstrating against the War in Iraq "aid and comfort" to our enemies.  To further confuse the issue, treason is not the only charge that can be levied against an American demonstrably working in the interest of his nation's enemies.  

    by Yamaneko2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:00:04 PM PDT

    •  So maybe there's hope. n/t

      by Brandon Friedman on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:13:59 PM PDT

  •  You can Digg this story ..

    here:

    http://digg.com/...

    by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:01:40 PM PDT

  •  Naw! They will just invoke their press censorship

    and keep him off their shores.  [Some may think the British are being pretty cleaver - I think they are protecting their property values.]  

    Personnaly, I don't think old Matt can stay away from good friends and the love of his life.

    by llbear on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:04:03 PM PDT

  •  I would pay good money, and lots of it

    to watch Harry beat the shit out of Drudge.  

    And I'm a peaceful man, overall.

    by nailbender on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:04:04 PM PDT

  •  photo for your diary, Brandon

    I posted it below ...

    

    Prince Harry wore an American flag cap.

    by CalNM on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:43:28 AM PDT

  •  I've seen Matt Drudge's name around (online)-

    but didn't know very much about him. After this idiot outed  Prince Harry, I was outraged--and made curious enough to find out just who he is!

    A schmuck! A poseur! Who plays dressup in clothes, with HAT, dating back to a B/W film starring Spencer Tracy!(?). Matt the muckraker? Gimme a break!

    Since when is clerking at 7-11 a qualification for "journalism"?  Felt quite nauseous, reading Wikipedia entry, which mentioned two posh houses he owns in Florida!  WTF!!

    Was it Barnum that said: "You can fool some of the people...."? How many of Drudge's fan club question his greed?!

    I'd love to see Drudge punished-- severely! My BBC/America channel covered this matter, and the Brits are pissed off, as well they should be.

    Aloha  ..  ..  ..

    by dolphin777 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:06:16 AM PDT

•  Incredible

  I only listen to NPR but they only stated that Prince Harry's presence in Afghanistan was revealed on the internet.  Cowardly coverage.  Of course, we still have Geraldo Rivera around after he revealed the location of troops to the world.  I guess, in this instance, giving aid and comfort to the enemy isn't important if you are a Brit.

  by gchaucer2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:22:35 PM PDT

  •  Ooo[s, to clarify

    "if you are a Brit" I meant exposing Prince Harry.  I'm getting goofy at this hour, sorry.

    by gchaucer2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:23:55 PM PDT

    •  On one of the hourly NPR reports...

      ... they said it was Drudge who leaked it.

      by highacidity on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:39:30 PM PDT

      •  heard that too.

        they interviewed him as well.  It was Dr Sludge.

        by nailbender on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:59:22 PM PDT

        •  Here's the link to the NPR report

          from today's ME.

          by nailbender on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:27:11 PM PDT

          •  oops, missed the link

            try that again.

            gotta remember to hit add.

            by nailbender on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:28:04 PM PDT

  •  You see, when Geraldo did it, he was

    remorseful.  He knew he'd fucked up.  Not this guy.  This guy is proud of himself for breaking the story.

    by Brandon Friedman on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:24:17 PM PDT

  •  There's a difference: Geraldo puts himself in

    harm's way to get a story.  Drudge gets a story by putting others in harm's way.

    by trivium on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:24:30 PM PDT

    •  Great point. n/t

      by Brandon Friedman on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:25:58 PM PDT

    •  On the same vein

      Their prince actually served in the military.

      Ours just snorted coke in uniform.

      by BullitNutz on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:27:03 PM PDT

      •  zzzzzzing!

        4 points to you.

        by llbear on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:41:53 PM PDT

        •  Thanks

          I'm here all night.

          by BullitNutz on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:58:44 AM PDT

    •  Excellent observation, great comment...

      Geraldo puts himself in harm's way to get a story.  Drudge gets a story by putting others in harm's way.

      by Mr SeeMore on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:08:47 PM PDT

•  Drudge is just a good Republican, he's

  making money any way he can.

  Never mind honor, ethics, common sense, duty or law.

  Those concepts are for suckers. People get hurt in the way of the mad dash for profit, too bad for them.

  by shpilk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:25:15 PM PDT

  •  Mad dash for profits

    and for the safety of "prior commitments" when it comes truly serving their country.

    by rightiswrong on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:28:10 PM PDT

•  It's the same as Valerie Plame

  these guys absolutely have no shame. Also, Prince Harry deserves utmost praise.

  by bhagamu on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:26:31 PM PDT

  •  Why is it always conservatives who do this?

    Never mind.  Don't answer that. . . .

    by Brandon Friedman on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:27:41 PM PDT

•  Why are people...

  ...so concerned about a prince?

  A f*cking prince!

  What if it happened that it was a Saudi prince instead of an English prince. Would everyone be grieving that someone broke the story?

  What is with the love of the English royals?

  by Rex Manning on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:31:17 PM PDT

  •  That's not the point.

    The point is that Drudge has no qualms about endangering troops in combat.  I mean, what will he do next?

    by Brandon Friedman on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:33:15 PM PDT

    •  What troops?

      All he did is report that an English royal was serving in combat in Afghanistan.

      If a newspaper reports that Joe Schmoe from Sheboygan is serving in Afghanistan is that "endangering troops in combat"?

      by Rex Manning on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:36:55 PM PDT

      •  No

        Prince Harry is a more important target to al-Qaeda because of the tragedy that would inevitably follow from his death. Revealing his location endangers his life and the lives of those he serves with.

        by bhagamu on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:38:39 PM PDT

        •  Now you lost me.

          ...because of the tragedy that would inevitably follow from his death.

          How would his death be any more tragic than the death of an American combat soldier?

          by Rex Manning on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:40:19 PM PDT

          •  To the British? n/t

            by bhagamu on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:41:16 PM PDT

          •  I don't think anyone here thinks...

            .. his death would be any more tragic than that of any other soldier. We are just acknowledging he is a high-value target for the Taliban/al Qaida.

            by highacidity on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:43:59 PM PDT

            •  Then he shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan!

              by Rex Manning on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:48:41 PM PDT

              •  Man you don't get it

                and you never answered why you were against intervention in afghanistan.

                by Drewid on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:49:56 PM PDT

                •  Nobody asked me.

                  by Rex Manning on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:51:09 PM PDT

                  •  I did

                    why?
                    Why not?
                    Enlighten me!

                    by Drewid on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:51:53 PM PDT

                    •  Some reasons.

                      One: Invading Afghanistan is a very stupid thing to do. It's an easy country to invade but it's an impossible country to control. That's a historical fact.

                      Two: I knew it would not make America any safer.

                      Three: I will never support sending others to fight in a war that I myself am not willing to serve in.

                      I have more but those are my basic reasons.

                      by Rex Manning on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:01:05 PM PDT

                      •  Heh

                        One: invading Afghanistan half heartedly is a stupid thing to do
                        Two: Hello, that's where Al Queda really was.
                        Three: Well that says it all
                        Four:
                        

                        by Drewid on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:05:31 PM PDT

                        •  Oh please.

                          No country has ever been able to conquer Afghanistan. The English tried it twice, the Russians tried it more than once and neither did it "half heartedly".

                          I recommend you read the following:

                          Afghanistan: A Military History from Alexander the Great to the Fall of the Taliban

                          Two: Hello, that's where Al Queda really was.

                          And invading Afghanistan did what exactly to weaken Al Qaida? Since the invasion of Afghanistan their power has only grown and they have a safe haven in Pakistan.

                          We accomplished nothing.

                          As for number four, outside of downtown Kabul the Bhurka rule is still in effect. Conditions for women are no better in Saudi Arabia. Should we invade Saudi Arabia too?

                          by Rex Manning on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:15:41 PM PDT

                          •  We didn't really

                            do shit in Afghanistan, W was looking toward Iraq.
                            But that is beside the point.
                            If we had gone into Afghanistan with half the resources we went into Iraq with, you think we wouldn't have broken Alqueda and the taliban.

                            by Drewid on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:18:14 PM PDT

                            •  Broken?

                              Al Qaida ran away to Pakistan. They would have done that anyway.

                              The Taliban just fled into the hills to wait us out.

                              No amount of additional US military force would have changed either outcome.

                              by Rex Manning on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:21:21 PM PDT

                              •  If you say so

                                I say we didn't go in there properly.
                                The entirity of or airbourne units and special forces, with afghani tribes pushing them our direction.
                                We dropped the ball, we would've annhiliated Al Queda and their Taliban buddies, but that wasn't the plan.

                                by Drewid on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:28:09 PM PDT

                                •  Not I say so.

                                  That's what happened.

                                  by Rex Manning on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:31:13 PM PDT

                                  •  You said

                                    you were opposed from the start, I'm opposed to how we went in, big difference.

                                    by Drewid on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:33:28 PM PDT

                •  He's just playing stupid

                  he knows that it would be a huge propaganda coup for the Taliban that would undermine the British/NATO effort.

                  by Snarcalita on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:44:19 PM PDT

                  •  Playing stupid?

                    Who gives a shit about a f*cking prince? Do you?

                    You love royalty or something?

                    by Rex Manning on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:19:24 PM PDT

              •  Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, huh?

                If he hadn't gone to fight, people would be complaining he was just another rich person who sits on his ass.

                If he does, then its HIS FAULT that he puts other soldiers at risk.

                I say thank you to Prince Harry that he served his country.

                by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:11:26 AM PDT

                •  Whom did he serve?

                  What did Afghanistan do to England?

                  by Rex Manning on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:20:16 PM PDT

  •  He's a high profile target

    Imagine if the Bush twins or Chelsea Clinton or Malia or Sasha Obama were in a similar situation and drudge revealed their location. It's basically treason.

    by bhagamu on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:35:18 PM PDT

    •  What?!!!

      If the Bush twins were deployed to Afghanistan as combat troops you think it would be treason for an American press outlet to report the story?

      Why do you hate the First Amendment?

      by Rex Manning on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:38:59 PM PDT

      •  Please don't let your antipathy for...

        ... class or celebrity status blind you to the fact that this guy is simply a high-value target and publishing where he was serving endangered his entire unit.

        by highacidity on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:42:24 PM PDT

        •  If he's such a "high value" target...

          ...then it was an act of idiocy to send him there.

          by Rex Manning on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:50:09 PM PDT

          •  He insisted

            He originally wanted to go to Iraq, but he wasn't allowed to.

            I as anti-monarchist as the next guy, but you can give the guy some credit for putting himself in the line of fire instead of having a safe and cosy life, when he actually had to twist some arms to get there. Unlike say, 9 out of 10 Republicans.

            by Calouste on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:19:52 PM PDT

      •  The fact of their deployment, no.

        Giving their location would be a boon for the enemy, and I would hope that should Barb and Jenna decide to join the Armed Forces that we would respect them no less than any other soldier.  

        by Yamaneko2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:06:53 PM PDT

        •  What would be a boon to "the enemy"?

          The deployment or the reporting of the deployment?

          Who is "the enemy" anyway?

          The Afghan people?

          by Rex Manning on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:23:46 PM PDT

          •  The enemy...

            People shooting at our soldiers or those of our allies in Afghanistan are the enemy.

            by Yamaneko2 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:06:11 AM PDT

    •  Actually, there is a presidential candidate

      whose son is in Iraq right now.

      by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:16:38 AM PDT

      •  What treasonous bastard...

        ...reported that?!

        by Rex Manning on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:22:20 PM PDT

  •  In this case...

    In this case, an English royal is fighting in an allied force against a mutual enemy, and deserving of the same protections and courtesies as his comrades.  

    If the story were about a Saudi prince, chances are distressingly good that he would be shooting at Americans in Afghanistan, or at least purchasing RPGs for the Taliban.

    by Yamaneko2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:04:14 PM PDT

•  C'mon. I'm anti-Drudge, but how does

  "outing" Prince Charlie compare with say, the "Pentagon Papers"? This is dumbass tripe that embarrasses the blog. Nothing personal.

  by ronlib on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:34:44 PM PDT

  •  Who is comparing it to the Pentagon Papers? n/t

    by highacidity on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:45:18 PM PDT

•  Brandon - the news media will kill you for this:

  American newsman Matt Drudge  

  Don't. even. snark. about. that.

  The stenographers news reporters are  all touchy and stuff about this.  Putting Drudge in with the rest of them serves them right is just way over the top.

  Well, that's what this press release says...

  by llbear on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:37:59 PM PDT

  •  Yes, but "news aggregator" just doesn't

    have the same ring to it.

    by Brandon Friedman on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:12:23 PM PDT

  •  Drudge's fancy hat

    Doesn't make him a newsman??

    by rick in mobile on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:48:02 PM PDT

    •  it seems to work for greg palast

      by VelvetElvis on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:14:24 AM PDT

•  Drudge is a piece of work. Warmest regards, Doc.

  by Translator on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:50:49 PM PDT

•  I heard this on

  my local radio station Friday morning

  by eeff on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:01:10 PM PDT

•  British take on the betrayal of the Prince...

  You Stupid, Stupid American Media. You have condemned our Prince to a potential death sentence for years to come. We fight alongside you in the name of democracy and you loud mouthed antics dig a deeper hole for us. We hate the lot of you for your dangerous stupidity.

  (My bold).

  About the 8th comment down on this source.

  by Mr SeeMore on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:19:13 PM PDT

  •  Harry wore an American flag hat

    The Royal Prince was actually serving in Afghanistan
    in support of the USA allies.
    
    use the pic in the diary, Brandon.

    Drudge is aiding the terror enemies!

    by CalNM on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:40:22 AM PDT

    •  The difference between British and American

      soldiers/officers.

      American troops have to keep their hair short.

      by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:19:52 AM PDT

•  Harry Returns

  If you have 'Live TV' toolbar, or a live feed link, the BBC is showing the planes arival with him and the others coming back to Britian right now.

  here's a Video link to an earlier BBC report

  by jimstaro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:41:45 AM PDT