Libs are renewing their zeal...
by following in their grandest tradition, that of hoping for America's defeat by her enemies. In the 60's it was Vietnam that inspired Hanoi Jane (now Jihad Jane) and her cronies. We all heard of the glories of the communist way, it's enlightened management of human potential and how the US shouldn't interfere in resisting the people's will. The lib's, aided by the MSM, constant sniping at America's effort to provide for a democratic process (isn't it amazing that libs can redefine the "people's will" as desirous of a murderous totalitarian dictatorship while free and open elections are "evil", but I digress) ultimately undermined America's support for the troops and the will to fight for freedom (forget Pay any price, Bear any burden", it's "Take it to the UN and the court of world opinion!")
Well 30 years later, we've got an equally erudite group and they are still true to their principles refined during the Vietnam war - never missing an opportunity to distort what has happened in Iraq or gloat over the death of American soldiers. Take the N.Y. Times Frank Rich's latest column Someone tell Frank Rich he's an idiot where he barely can contain his enthusiasm in painting a picture of American defeat. Again, notice how the libs redefine the meaning of words. Saddamn has been removed, his sons killed, free elections have been held, by a massive turnout, a Constitution is just days away from being approved, the incidence of IED's has declined greatly, power/schools/services have been restored beyond what was possible under Hussein, and the US and it's allies are targeted for major withdrawals next year - far surpassing the 9 year occupations of Germany and Japan, but this is "DEFEAT."
How lucky are we this party didn't exist in WWII. We'd all be goose-stepping and saying "Sieg Heil" (of course, next time the Germans invade France, I vote we let them keep it.) To read Rich's article, one would think we did nothing of value in Iraq, save for constant missteps and mindless acts of futility. Then you realize, hey, this is the NY Times! Who can trust it? Just peruse Rich's article for numerous statements of well, non-fact (he must be trying to be the NYT's next Pulitzer Prize winner.)
Rich, for example, takes one obscure article about recruiting for the Army, (he doesn't give a cite) and then boldly proclaims that "Bush... has lost the Army." Be it far from a NYT editor to seek out the truth, but with all the online blogs from military personnel and the troops in Iraq - one could modestly hold some hope for that penetrating research the old gray lady is known for. The facts are, that Bush and the war in Iraq is supported by the vast majority of the troops involved. They actually get to meet with the Iraqi citizens and see their efforts and appreciation for the Coalition's help. In addition, the Air Force, Navy and Marines have all met their recruiting goals. Interesting, the one that bears the heaviest casualties (Marines) is still meeting it's recruiting goals. Do you think there's a snowball's chance of reading that on the front page of the Times??
This is only one distortion/lie in the article. There are too many (start off with Rich's regarding Wilson's Report on the Niger Yellowcake story as authoritative when it's poor construction/ research/ methodology was what started the whole Palme affair) to detail, but Rich is most impressive in his track record for error. The distortions are simply too many, and Rich is not alone in this talent among liberal commentators. The libs as a group, particularly their leadership, continues to "blame America first" while chanting the mantra of her enemy. First it was Ho Chi Minh, now the Dims are Bin Laden's greatest asset and ally. And yes, if you are wondering, I am questioning their allegiance.
It is impossible to claim support for someone, while doing everything you can to undermine their efforts. That is, unless your a liberal. This is America's Democratic Party, with a jackass as their mascot (how appropriate,) and the white flag of surrender as their banner (the French forgot to copyright it). Everyone knows, America's stated enemies hate President Bush and the American troops with a passion. Isn't it interesting that is also the Democrat's primary position/emotion and basis for their every action? If it walks like a duck......
Well 30 years later, we've got an equally erudite group and they are still true to their principles refined during the Vietnam war - never missing an opportunity to distort what has happened in Iraq or gloat over the death of American soldiers. Take the N.Y. Times Frank Rich's latest column Someone tell Frank Rich he's an idiot where he barely can contain his enthusiasm in painting a picture of American defeat. Again, notice how the libs redefine the meaning of words. Saddamn has been removed, his sons killed, free elections have been held, by a massive turnout, a Constitution is just days away from being approved, the incidence of IED's has declined greatly, power/schools/services have been restored beyond what was possible under Hussein, and the US and it's allies are targeted for major withdrawals next year - far surpassing the 9 year occupations of Germany and Japan, but this is "DEFEAT."
How lucky are we this party didn't exist in WWII. We'd all be goose-stepping and saying "Sieg Heil" (of course, next time the Germans invade France, I vote we let them keep it.) To read Rich's article, one would think we did nothing of value in Iraq, save for constant missteps and mindless acts of futility. Then you realize, hey, this is the NY Times! Who can trust it? Just peruse Rich's article for numerous statements of well, non-fact (he must be trying to be the NYT's next Pulitzer Prize winner.)
Rich, for example, takes one obscure article about recruiting for the Army, (he doesn't give a cite) and then boldly proclaims that "Bush... has lost the Army." Be it far from a NYT editor to seek out the truth, but with all the online blogs from military personnel and the troops in Iraq - one could modestly hold some hope for that penetrating research the old gray lady is known for. The facts are, that Bush and the war in Iraq is supported by the vast majority of the troops involved. They actually get to meet with the Iraqi citizens and see their efforts and appreciation for the Coalition's help. In addition, the Air Force, Navy and Marines have all met their recruiting goals. Interesting, the one that bears the heaviest casualties (Marines) is still meeting it's recruiting goals. Do you think there's a snowball's chance of reading that on the front page of the Times??
This is only one distortion/lie in the article. There are too many (start off with Rich's regarding Wilson's Report on the Niger Yellowcake story as authoritative when it's poor construction/ research/ methodology was what started the whole Palme affair) to detail, but Rich is most impressive in his track record for error. The distortions are simply too many, and Rich is not alone in this talent among liberal commentators. The libs as a group, particularly their leadership, continues to "blame America first" while chanting the mantra of her enemy. First it was Ho Chi Minh, now the Dims are Bin Laden's greatest asset and ally. And yes, if you are wondering, I am questioning their allegiance.
It is impossible to claim support for someone, while doing everything you can to undermine their efforts. That is, unless your a liberal. This is America's Democratic Party, with a jackass as their mascot (how appropriate,) and the white flag of surrender as their banner (the French forgot to copyright it). Everyone knows, America's stated enemies hate President Bush and the American troops with a passion. Isn't it interesting that is also the Democrat's primary position/emotion and basis for their every action? If it walks like a duck......
posted by Judge William at 8:11 AM
<< Home