Posted on 06/12/2006 9:25:54 PM PDT by Reagan Man
Every six months or so, the liberal media search for any story that casts our soldiers in a bad light. Abu Ghraib was portrayed as indicative of almost the entire U.S. Army when, in fact, it consisted of less than 1/1000 %. Besides which, in the scheme of possible war atrocities, it doesn't even rank. It was more uncouth behavior than atrocity.
As soon as a scenario is found where our soldiers defended themselves from enemy fire, road bombs or check-point crashing cars, the media indict our boys, without first considering the circumstances which necessitated the shooting response. Guilty! Guilty until proven innocent.
It is quite obvious the media have a preconceived attitude toward our men and women in uniform and look for events to affirm their view. It is equally obvious that the media do not wait to issue its guilty judgement, even before the facts come in. For in the media's mind, the guilty outcome is a foregone conclusion given the liberal media's notion of who our soldiers really are. They want to believe the worst.
In the mind of most of today's smug liberals, our soldiers are rednecks -- and rednecks, when let loose and not under control of "civilized" liberals, do what comes natural to rednecks -- they act rednecky. Liberals feel that way since, in their parochial view, who would enlist and volunteer unless one is poor, has no chance for upward mobility, and has a tendecy and lust for violence?
They believe this since most have no friends or family in the military. These elitists perceive the soldier and the military as below their class. Perhaps they heard of a grandfather who served back in the days when there was a draft, but not today.
Why do they so despise our military? Why do they never come to its defense? Why do they never understand the frightful plight of the soldier who, when fired upon by the enemy, has no recourse but to fire back if he wishes to stay alive? Why does the liberal not understand what he has seen countless times, namely, that the Jihadist enemy positions women and children in his front while shooting at our soldiers?
It is because the liberal moralizer deep down knows that he does not have the physical courage and might of the soldier. Compared to the soldier, he is a coward and weakling. His strength lies only in bringing law suits and sounding morally superior to the rest of us.
The liberal moralizer needs to tear down the U.S. soldier as a way of guaranteeing that the soldier is never elevated to a more honored level in American life than is he, the liberal moralizer. Tear down the soldier and you destroy the honor we feel toward that soldier. Find anything to show you are better than the soldier so that you and your smug liberal friends can celebrate your superiority. Liberal media guys cannot abide that America has heroes who are not them.
For the media, the heroes are Woodward and Bernstein or Washington Post and New York Times reporters who splash across the world U.S. national security secrets. They admire not those who defend but who tear down. Many entered the business for precisely that reason: to indict our institutions and ways.
By and large, certain very liberal cosmopolitan men are jealous of what the soldier can do, and have a desire, a need, to destroy the object of their envy.
By pressuring our government not to allow our soldiers engaged in urban battles to respond quickly, liberals -- especially the media -- are heightening the possibility that our young men will be killed. Their school yard "legalities" are handcuffing our soldiers and are, I'm convinced, precipitating American deaths and casualties. Our soldiers are now hesitating to defend themselves out of fear of being brought up on charges at the hands of the ACLU.
Our home-grown leftists must know how their 24/7 finger pointing and accusations are endangering the lives of our boys. Perhaps that is why they do it, not to mention a desire to humiliate our military and cause the defeat of the U.S. They have become accessories to and instruments for death.
If we in the West decide that our soldiers can never fire back at the enemy when women and children are present, then we have handed the enemy a sure-fire method for our defeat. We might as well roll up the streets of the West, now, since the enemy can move forward with immunity house-by-house, building-by-building, in every urban setting in which they choose to fight, including London and New York.
Thank God our safety is in the hands of these guys from the Midwest and South and not those snivelly effeminates from Brown, Brandeis, Columbia and NYU. If it were so, we'd by now all be prayer rugs.
The left's great nightmare is Nationalism.
Also, they are losing their American audience so they try to appeal to international audiences
Part of this disgusting phenomenon, at present, is rooted in liberals' visceral hatred for the Commander in Chief. Discrediting the armed forces is one more way they can strike at Pres.Bush.
The liberal moralizer needs to tear down the U.S. soldier as a way of guaranteeing that the soldier is never elevated to a more honored level in American life than is he, the liberal moralizer. Tear down the soldier and you destroy the honor we feel toward that soldier. Find anything to show you are better than the soldier so that you and your smug liberal friends can celebrate your superiority. Liberal media guys cannot abide that America has heroes who are not them.
WHY? Because liberals/leftists believe THEY are entitled to inherit the American political power turf. Also, THEY may be afraid of future Military Coups so by demonizing and defunding the Military, they may save themselves. Remember how Hillary Clinton reacted: she ordered that no military member look her in the eye and that they not look at her. WEIRD! Hillary wants to be Commander in Chief?! If president, she would create a Gay Cadre to surround her, I'll bet.
Why Do Liberal Media Despise Our Troops? ^
Snippet:
In the mind of most of today's smug liberals, our soldiers are rednecks -- and rednecks, when let loose and not under control of "civilized" liberals, do what comes natural to rednecks -- they act rednecky. Liberals feel that way since, in their parochial view, who would enlist and volunteer unless one is poor, has no chance for upward mobility, and has a tendecy and lust for violence?
I agree with the "naivete" angle, but I'm not sure about the "narcissism" reasoning. Narcissism is more of a objectivist belief.
Because they are STUPID!
My understanding of narcissism is that it is best explained as malignant self love.
This part of the article gives credence to the premise:
The liberal moralizer needs to tear down the U.S. soldier as a way of guaranteeing that the soldier is never elevated to a more honored level in American life than is he, the liberal moralizer. Tear down the soldier and you destroy the honor we feel toward that soldier. Find anything to show you are better than the soldier so that you and your smug liberal friends can celebrate your superiority. Liberal media guys cannot abide that America has heroes who are not them.
That's part of it. But liberals didn't express the kind of animosity toward the military, at least not as openly, when Bill Clinton was President. They may not have loved the military back then, but to them, it was "their" military.
I think the main reason for their hostility now is they see the military as an extension of President Bush -- its operations are his policies put into action. So they despise the military, because they despise him.
Na, the liberals/MSM have hated America openly for 50 years.
This President is just their latest excuse.
The real question is; what are we going to do about it?
I've always revered the men and women who serve, thanked them for their service, and looked after their children in our neighborhood. It's a start, but one that everybody I know, including liberals, finds unassailable. Grass roots!
It is the Soldier,
not the poet who has given us freedom of speech
It is the Soldier,
not the campus organizer who gives us freedom to demonstrate
It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
who serves beneath the flag,
and whose coffin is draped by the flag,
who allows the protester to burn the flag.
Father Dennis Edward O'Brien
I like that poem and you got the author right. Thanks
The 60's anti-war hippies were a-holes than and this new crop is a-holes now.
Don't ever accuse the MSM of being objective and even-handed, they'd probably bite like a pit bull.
More like a toy poddle.
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.