.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Another Liberal Trashes The Troops

Have you seen the video clip from NBC Nightly News of U.S. Soldiers in Iraq expressing their frustration and displeasure of those who say "we support the Troops but not the War"? Our Troops don't appear to take too kindly to that type of Liberal mindset, and why should they?

Here's the video:


H/T: Morning Coffee

For decades the Left has instructed us that in a Politically Correct state world, that we all must be very careful in the words and language we use, especially when it comes to THE CHILDREN. My, how we must carefully select each and every word and match it with the right facial expression so little Johnny and Susie grow up without any maladjustments or subjectivity from not only what we say, but how we say it and how we look when we say it.

The Left has carried their "words have impact and effects" social engineering into adulthood too, reminding us that words mean things even when they don't mean things. For instance, telling a female co-worker, "that's a nice dress", or, "you look nice" unmistakably means that you want to have sex with her right then and there on the desk, doesn't it?

So for the hypocrisy of the Left to say that they "support the Military but not the war" really - by all means - rings as hollow and insensitive as it really is. No Liberal critic is stretching the truth or being - in the eyes of a Liberal - "hurtful" or "mean-spirited" when saying the Left is anti-American. The Left is anti-American and void of Patriotism. You cannot say you support the Troops and in the next breath claim you don't support their mission. It's no different than, and I've written this before, telling your child that while he or she sucks at volleyball, soccer or band, you'll support their attempts at that sport or activity.

And along comes one of the most disgusting OpEd pieces that the Washington Post has ever published by William Arkin:

    I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks - that's why it is news - and I'm also sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story.

    I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.

Billy, you're so very wrong. First, to insinuate by saying you're "sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views," is akin when a caller to Liberal Talk Radio identifies as being, or having been, in the Military only to have the immediate dismissive comment by the Liberal Host saying that they have no way of knowing for sure that the Military service of the caller is legitimate. Yet when a caller to Liberal Radio identifies as being, or having been, in the Military and they are critical of the Troops or the Bush Administration, then their Military service is embraced and never doubted by the Liberal host.

And Billy, you want to extend Freedom of Speech to the critics of the Troops while not extending the same courtesy to the Men and Women in the Military? Typical Liberal hypocrisy, wanting to reserve an action or freedom only for yourself but not for your critics. Why are you afraid to hear what the Troops have to say? Afraid of how it may adversely affect the Liberal Political Agenda?

    I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naive and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.

His illogic that "the debate confuses them" is patently false. It's not the debate over the War or the Mission that confuses our Troops. Arkin know this, he's just pretending to offer up a reason to explain his vulgar column and the equally vulgar behavior of Lefties who claim to support the Troops but not their mission.

It's people like Arkin who, from within the safety of the U.S. shores and the confines of their comfy ID-card-access-only office building, will spout their anti-Military and anti-American rhetoric. As long as people like Arkin feel safe and secure from personal harm, they will attack and demean any idea, solution or ideology that isn't in perfect harmony with their own rhetoric.

For decades Liberals have made no secret of their contempt for all things Military. Now, they want to pretend that their carefully chosen words of "supporting the Troops but not the Mission" isn't what they say it is. You're not fooling anyone but yourselves. You're just like Democrat Senator Carl Levin who scrapes a few wisps of hair over his head, comb-over style, fooling only himself that he isn't bald as a cueball. This is what the Liberal party is today, folks - the political ideology equivalent of a pathetic comb-over.

Liberals like Arkin and his kind should be ashamed of themselves, their actions and their words. But their arrogance, elitism and enormous overinflated self-importance doesn't allow these people any sense of shame or disgrace.

It must be somehow satisfying for Arkin and his ilk who endlessly criticize the people who are willing to sacrifice their lives so that Arkin, and those like him, can talk out of their ass thereby identifying themselves as truly nothing other than America-haters and haters of freedom. Especially those who will sacrifice their lives for asshats like Arkin, who harbor nothing but pure disdain for the Military.

It's too bad that these people aren't imprisoned for the duration of this war, much like Abraham Lincoln did and much like what had been done in past wars in regard to how turncoats were treated. Traitors like Arkin - and that's exactly what these people are - are anything but supportive of our freedoms and rights. What would motivate someone like Arkin writing such a piece? A complete and utter devotion to all things Liberal, a hatred for the country in which he lives and a hatred of the Military.

For decades one of the most prominent Liberal planks in their party platform was that of anti-Militarism. Everyone knows this, it is no secret. Suddenly, the Left did a 180 in 2004 when they realized they could tout John Kerry's military service in Vietnam. But in 1996 the Left made it clear that Bob Dole shouldn't proudly tout his Military service when he ran against the draft-dodging Bill Clinton. Former Military Generals who are Conservative are routinely bashed by the Left. But oh how the Left will hold Wesley Clark in nothing but the highest esteem.

You understand how it works by now, don't you? The standards Liberals apply to others do not apply to themselves. Liberals are free to turn 180s at a moments notice as long as it gives them the opportunity to advance their Liberal Agenda. This is all it's about for these people.

Arkin claims to have military service in his past. Taking my cue from what I wrote above on Liberal Radio hosts, there's no reason we should believe him. And even if he can prove it, there's no reason to believe that whatever proof he has is factual. Kind of like Dan Rather's faux and manufactured George W. Bush National Guard story.

©2007

Linking Here:
Flopping Aces

Comments:
I don't mean to say anything, but the soldier is a bit slow. I don't support the cause that sent troops over there in the first place but I support them and full hope for their success. I don't need to approve of the war to be supportive of the soldiers.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker



Web Site Traffic Counters
Alabama Internet

Listed on BlogShares

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

This site uses photographs and material from other sources in strict
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.

Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.