THE PING!Posted on 06/13/2005 9:21:35 PM PDT by CHARLITE
I constantly hear liberals decry the policies of George W. Bush, using catch phrases like “out of the mainstream” and “dangerously irresponsible” to describe them. Apparently, if you repeat something often enough, using the same carefully crafted terminology, and applying to it with the same condescending tone each time, it magically becomes the truth... at least in the minds of leftists.
And, of course, the primary policy target of left-wingers in Congress remains the war in Iraq, even though nearly all of them supported it initially. As recent polls show support for the war waning, liberals all over the country are redoubling their efforts to convince average Americans that the Iraq conflict is “Bush’s Vietnam.” What you won’t hear any of them admit to, however, is that this decline in approval is primarily due to their own anti-war propaganda efforts.
Just take a look at the type of war coverage we are inundated with these days. For example, every morning I check out the Associated Press wire on the Internet. This is one of the main sources of information used by both the print and broadcast media in the United States. Over the past several weeks I’ve made a point of noting what the top stories posted on the AP have been on a daily basis, and while it may come as a shock to some folks, I was not surprised to find that over the course of about a month’s time, only a half dozen of the lead stories presented there were about something other than American soldiers or Iraqi civilians being killed by “insurgents.”
Not once in did I see a story about something positive happening in Iraq or Afghanistan, yet well over a thousand suspected terrorists have either been captured or killed by our forces since the middle of May, and massive stores of weapons and other terrorist appurtenances have been seized.
While some people think that such one-sided war coverage is merely the result of laziness, or a proclivity on the part of the popular media to focus on tragedy, it is quite clear to me that a strong anti-war bias permeates the entire news industry nowadays. To believe otherwise is to be utterly dismissive of the available evidence.
If only half as many positive war stories as negative ones were being reported every day, few Americans would fail to support our efforts over there, and the seditious ravings of addle-brained hypocrites like Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, who like to throw around terms like “quagmire,” would be dismissed out of hand by the vast majority of people.
But that issue aside, the president has managed to stick to his guns on the issue, in spite of the fact that a growing number of people in this country are starting to go wobbly in the knees. Frankly, it doesn’t matter what they think. The war is going to continue no matter how many people get brainwashed into thinking it’s a mistake, because the president knows better, and he’s a very serious individual.
Perhaps people like John (I voted for the war before I voted against it) Kerry have forgotten why the vast majority of U.S. Congressmen backed Bush’s plan to dethrone Saddam Hussein, but I haven’t. They did so because for decades the Iraqi leader was a known terrorist supporter, who used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, ignored every U.N. resolution ever created to prevent his regime from developing WMD, sought refined (yellow cake) uranium ore from Africa, and fired upon U.S. and British war planes in the Iraq no-fly zones hundreds of times, breaking the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement.
Even the liberals in Congress couldn’t argue with his reasoning, since Bush was saying exactly what his predecessor Bill Clinton (not to mention John Kerry) had said only a few years earlier, and there was certainly no reason to think that Saddam had suddenly decided to stop behaving like a psychotic dictator all of the sudden.
Of course now those same liberals want us all to believe that Bush lied to them, even though they had access to the same intelligence he did at the time. They also want everyone to think that the war is now unwinable, even though we’ve already accomplished every major objective that we set out to achieve. Sure, there’s still plenty of terrorists running around Iraq, and we’ll do everything we can to wipe them out while we’re there, but the immediate goals of the invasion were to overrun the country, prevent the enemy from setting fire to the nation’s oil wells, depose and capture Saddam Hussein, and set up a democratically elected government in the place of his brutal regime.
Not only have we accomplished those missions, but we’ve done so in record time, while simultaneously rebuilding half the country. The only reason we’re still in Iraq is because there’s a whole lot of terrorists left to kill there. I don’t know if the Bush administration planned it this way, or if we just got lucky, but our presence in that country has drawn into the fray thousands of the very scumbags our fine fighting men and women were just itching to frag all along. We may have lost some good troops along the way, but we’ve taken out far more of them than they have of us, no matter what the New York Times would have you believe.
Every time an “insurgent” is shot in the head over there, it means there’s one less dirtbag running around that we have to worry about sneaking into Manhattan next year with a suitcase full of God only knows what, hell-bent on killing American civilians.
Liberals in this country argue that the cost of the war is too high, either in dollars, body bags or both, but when asked what alternative plans they’ve managed to devise concerning the eradication of the terrorist threat, their solutions leave more than a little to be desired. So far the best ideas they’ve come up with are to abandon Iraq, apologize to the French for not being as appeasement oriented as they are, and let the United (oil-for-bribes) Nations deal with international terrorism.
President Bush may be losing popularity points over the war right now, but he’s still got the support of those Americans who understand how important it is that we finish what we’ve started in Iraq. Those who hold the leftist view of the matter have the support of every terrorist slimeball in the world, and I’d rather be in the minority than be on the side of people like Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.
For some reason, liberals remain oblivious to the fact that much of what they stand for is endorsed by people who hate the United States of America, and they seem incapable of understanding that even some of their own political heroes of yesteryear would likely be appalled by many of their current policy initiatives.
Let’s take a quick look at whose opinions are actually in line with those of President Bush, and whose opinions match the views of liberals.
Bush policy - on denying imprisoned enemy combatants the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.
Supporter - Franklin Roosevelt (icon of the left)
Roosevelt not only condoned detaining enemy combatants indefinitely and denying them access to our courts, he actually rounded up tens of thousands of American citizens and interned them without formal charges just for being of Japanese descent.
Liberal policy - on allowing imprisoned enemy combatants the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.
Supporter - Osama Bin Laden (mass murderer)
Bush policy - an across-the-board tax cuts.
Supporter - John F. Kennedy (icon of the left)
Kennedy proposed similar cuts in 1963, including a 29 percent reduction in income taxes on the richest Americans.
Liberal policy - tax increases for the “rich.”
Supporter - John F. Kerry (junior Senator from Taxachusetts)
Bush policy - promoting faith based charitable organizations.
Supporter - Bill Clinton (icon of the left) Clinton signed into law “Charitable Choice” legislation which stated that the government cannot discriminate against faith-based organizations when awarding funds for the administration of public programs.
Liberal policy - eliminating faith based charitable organizations.
Supporter - Joseph Stalin (mass murderer)
Bush policy - getting an up or down vote on judicial nominees.
Supporter - James Madison (founding father of the United States of America)
The following words were written by President Madison in the Federalist Papers.
“It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.
"Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.”
Liberal policy – for filibustering judicial nominees.
Supporter - Robert Byrd (former Klansman)
Bush policy - on the creation of the Patriot Act.
Likely supporter - Franklin Roosevelt (icon of the left)
Based upon the policies of the Roosevelt Administration during W.W.II, there is little doubt that he would have supported the Patriot Act in its current form.
Liberal policy - on repealing the Patriot Act.
Supporter - Al-Qaeda terror cells in the United States (mass murderers)
Bush policy - on the creation of school voucher programs, and holding public schools accountable for educating our children.
Supporter - Most American parents (average people)
A 2003 national poll conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide found that 63% of Americans are in favor of school vouchers. A 2004 poll conducted by the First Amendment Center produced almost identical results, with 62% of respondents supporting school choice.
Liberal policy - on denying poor people a choice of which schools to send their children to, and not holding public schools accountable for educating our children.
Supporter - The National Education Association (self-important bureaucrats)
Bush policy - on allowing for the partial privatization of Social Security.
Supporter - Franklin Roosevelt (icon of the left)
With regard to his original Social Security plan, President Roosevelt wrote that “In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions.
Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.”
Liberal policy - on preventing the partial privatization of Social Security.
Supporter - The Communist Party of the United States (pathetic group of morons)
Bush policy - on medical liability reform, and reducing the number of frivolous malpractice lawsuits to help bring down healthcare costs.
Supporter - The American Medical Association (doctors)
On its website, the AMA asks doctors to “Help us fix the medical liability crisis and stand with your fellow physicians across America. With the trial lawyers pulling out all the stops to maintain the ‘jackpot justice’ status quo, breaking the gridlock will not be easy.”
Liberal policy - on increasing government control over healthcare, and promoting medical malpractice lawsuits.
Supporter - John Edwards (trial lawyer who made his fortune suing doctors for malpractice)
Bush policy - on preventing partial birth abortions.
Supporter - Human beings
Liberal policy - on condoning partial birth abortions.
Supporter - Soulless automatons
When you get right down to it, the question that Americans have to ask themselves is this: Whose side do I want to be on, the one which incorporates the beliefs of people like FDR, JFK and James Madison, or the one that communists, mass-murdering dictators, and terrorists support?
About the Writer: Edward Daley is a freelance writer who resides in New England. He is owner of the website, The Daley Times-Post, which can be accessed at: http://users.adelphia.net/~thofab/index2.htm
Comments: thofab@adelphia.net.
GREAT!!!!!!!1
Good article CHARLITE!!
THE PING!FYI ping!
Great article. What few ever stop to consider is that we (the ones supposedly out of the "mainstream") are right and that everyone else is wrong. It's easy and safe to side with the majority of the world. It takes courage to stand for what is right. The left will never understand that. The Dems have become nothing more than the "one world" mouthpiece.
Liberals seem to love "moral equivalence" arguments. They should all read this article and ...take a quick look at whose opinions are actually in line with those of President Bush, and whose opinions match the views of liberals.
.
I was just getting this ready to post, myself...hey, put me on your ping list and save me all that trouble!! ... grin...
masterful..must find this guy and have him run the campaign v. Fat Boy Teddy...
My disgust for liberals grows exponentially every week.
good read ping
What a terrific article! Thanks for the ping.
FYI
If only half as many positive war stories as negative ones were being reported every day, few Americans would fail to support our efforts over there, and the seditious ravings of addle-brained hypocrites like Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, who like to throw around terms like “quagmire,” would be dismissed out of hand by the vast majority of people
But reporting the positive info coming out of Iraq would be against the media agenda.
Thankfully, some in the news are saying 'the media is wrong' and are taking a look for themselves.
One guy got himself dehydrated enough to need a colostomy.(ouch)
But he said it was worth it to see the real deal and hear the troops speak directly.
Not only have we accomplished those missions, but we’ve done so in record time, while simultaneously rebuilding half the country. The only reason we’re still in Iraq is because there’s a whole lot of terrorists left to kill there. I don’t know if the Bush administration planned it this way, or if we just got lucky, but our presence in that country has drawn into the fray thousands of the very scumbags our fine fighting men and women were just itching to frag all along. We may have lost some good troops along the way, but we’ve taken out far more of them than they have of us, no matter what the New York Times would have you believe.
Every time an “insurgent” is shot in the head over there, it means there’s one less dirtbag running around that we have to worry about sneaking into Manhattan next year with a suitcase full of God only knows what, hell-bent on killing American civilians.
---->
Whoo - HOO Great article!!!
Hey, I'd be more than happy to help out any candidate who will challenge Ted (the murderous, fat, bloated, drunken sod from Taxachusetts) Kennedy for his Senate seat. ;o)
Edward L. Daley (aka DarcPrynce)
Owner of the Daley Times-Post
http://www.times-post.com
well...who ya got? I say let's run Bill Cosby as an independent. The MSM has already indicated that it hates him....
Man, wouldn't it be something if the Cos man actually ran for public office as a Republican?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.