There are a multitude of examples this week that epitomize the ridiculous inconsistency of the left, and why it gives me some glimmer of hope for November. The first example is the Zarqawi death yesterday. For two years the left has yapped about catching the terrorist and stopping the insurgency. Yesterday, the terrorist caught a couple of our JDAMs and now the left is screaming about how terrible it is that we killed a terrorist! They think we should have let him live, because now they hate us and will try and kill us. It is amzing to me that the left thinks the following things happened AFTER 9/11 - 241 Marines killed in Beirut, American hostages in Iran for 444 days, the Achille Lauro, Pan Am 103, The bombing of a nightclub in Germany that killed an American soldier, WTC I, Khobar Towers, American embassy bombings in Kenya, Tanzania, and Saudi Arabia, the attempted assasination of President G.W. Bush, the USS Cole...and many others I forget at the moment. Yeah, i can see where they have been trying to get us to play Monopoly, but now they are pissed and might decide to kill us.
The second example if the conrgessman William Jefferson (D-La) scandal. He is being investigated for bribery, racketeering, or whatever the actual charges may turn out to be.He accepted $100,000 cash in a sting operation. Now, some on the left want him to step down from the Ways and Means Committee, and he refused. the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) said that he is innocent until proven guilty, because of the legal presumption of innocence. Ok, the left wanted Tom Delay to resign because of legal troubles, screaming about his guilt, and now it doesn't apply to one of their own? It would be much easier to swallow the hyperbolic, alarmist speech and over-bloviating from the left is they would at least pretend to have the same opinion of their people as they do ours. You think the dems have even given up on the "culture of corruption" thing for a while. Wonder why?
And one more little inconsistency of the left. This Ann Coulter thing - It is ok for Michael Moore to unethically use people in a "documentary' (which I think should be an actual representation of facts. Moore selectively edited the cuts of military personnel, and placed them out of context in the movie to make it sound as if they were against the war)Back to the point - ...unethically use people in a documentary and call the President a traitor and murderer, but say that the Jersey Girls are beyond comment?
You Are Among The Elite!
Friday, June 09, 2006
The left is Predictable but Never Consistent
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 Posts From Readers:
Oh, Robert...where to begin...
1.) I'd like to know your sources for examples of liberals claiming "how terrible it is that we killed a terrorist." To my knowledge, and I listen and read a lot of liberal stuff, there has only been a question raised of what could've been gained had he been taken alive. Most of the reaction, in a rare instance of bi-partisanship, has been a unified congrats to the soldiers and even Rummy.
2.) William Jefferson, while not found guilty yet, should step down. I can't repeat this enough. And the Congressional Black Caucus is doing what I expect they would do -- protecting one of their own the only way they know how. I don't defend this, merely understand it. While he is under investigation, he should, as any other state or federal employee would, step down from his post at least temporarily. If the allegations of taking money on video and storing it in tinfoil in his freezer are true, he should go to jail. End of story.
3.) Please tell me you're not defending Ann Coulter. That waste of human flesh who pisses on the graves of the fallen for the almighty dollar needs medication and tight observation by professionals. And for the record, comparing her to Michael Moore is simply unfair. Well, post-"Godless" anyway.
Up until now, she's just been a media whore for the ultra-right-wing. But after outright attacking the widows of 9/11 as a whole simply because some of them expressed their political views during the 2004 campaign is not only inexcusable, it's nausiating. Book stores should pull her books from their shelves and refuse to sell such packaged hate.
Michael Moore, while unapologetic in his liberalism, works for a different type of cause. While it's unfortunate that a soldier thought he was being portrayed as a "Bush-basher" in his documentary, that wasn't what I took from it. I took it as an example of what happens in war regardless of your political persuation. I remember that scene quite well and aside from being in a part of the film where other solders express their desire to replace Dubya, there is no mention of the armless soldier's political leanings.
Do I think that he put that scene together to make the point that all soldiers are pro-Democrat? No. It illustrates the horrors of war. How one reacts to it is their choice, not Moore's.
I am, however, perfectly aware of certain omissions from Moore's film and I don't think they were accidental. But he at least gives a side of the story that you don't get from, say, FoxNews.
Hello Robert.
Here is something that is related to what you have written about, although it depresses the heck out of me to have found it. You know, even when we find things to suppport your position that the hard left is supporting a vile position, it is an arguement that you regret winning. For example, if I suspect that my brother is dealing drugs, I would be more than happy to be proven wrong. That is why finding things like this is so dang depressing, even if it fits certain preconceived notions.
Killing Zarqawi and three women in the house with him was not an act of war. It was an act of retaliatory terrorism.*
Jesus wept.
Very respectfully,
TM
*
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015054.html
Thanks for the link, TM. I would also like to be proven wrong. But when the left has staked out a position where they can only be vindicated by an American loss, there is no other conclusion.
Post a Comment