Leftist Lies...Again

Yesterday I made the point that liberals argue by mis-characterizing conservative positions to make them seem horrible when they are not; and by using "softened" language to describe their own ridiculous positions and make them seem more palatable. My point was also that this is done routinely.

The most prominent example of this behavior is the liberal Congress's attempts to backstab the American military by dragging them out of Iraq before their work is done. If successful, this act would be disastrous for for Iraqis, who would be terrorized and killed in huge numbers almost immediately. It would also hurt our nation tremendously, as we would completely lose credibility with our allies with whom we would claim to stand next to in a fight. Who would trust us again, and why? After the fall of Saigon and our rapid exit from Somalia after the "Blackhawk Down" incident, leaving Iraq after 5 years of hard work would simply send a confirmation that America doesn't have the wherewithall to get "the jobs" done any more.

And the causes of all of these pullouts are the same: the Liberal Left. Senator Ted Kennedy, for one, is proud of being instrumental in cutting the funding of the troops in Vietnam in the mid 70's. That pullout has been a dark stain on our country's honor ever since. And yet he also helps lead the charge to get out of Iraq today. He, at least, didn't learn from his mistakes. Bottom line: The Left has no stomach for a fight.

One of the red herrings the Leftist congressmen and women put out there as the supposed rationale for wanting to "redeploy" our troops is their overriding concern for the troops' welfare. However I don't buy this at all. One reason is that, besides the Left always wanting to pull the troops out of combat zones, thus losing those battles/wars, the Left also is the source of anti-military protests on campuses and for the widespread banning of military recruiters on college campuses. Many leftists also want military recruiters to be kicked out of high schools in America. They give ridiculous reasons for this belief that recruiters don't belong in such places, recruiting our kids, but I believe the real reason is hatred for the military machine and what it is for.

Case in point: The New Republic magazine (left-leaning), recently recuperating from a similar scandal in 1998, just published a column written, allegedly, by a member of the military serving in Iraq, in which all kinds of horrific behavior is described being perpetrated by our troops. This behavior included laughing and making jokes about a female civilian contractor there whose face was horribly burned; finding a mass child gravesite and wearing a child's skull like a toy; and intentionally running over dogs in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, among others. The author uses a phony name, and the editors are standing behind the story. The Weekly Standard began investigating the story, and asked milbloggers to help out, which many of them are doing.

Milbloggers starting finding problems with the story almost immediately (just as other bloggers did a few years ago with the Dan Rather fiasco) and began posting these problems online, attacking the N.R.'s credibility. Republic editors, who haven't come out for any interviews at all yet, have started backtracking and investigating the claims made in the story.

There are several places to read about this developing story: The Weekly Standard's website has a good overview, and there are a number of good milbloggers all over this investigation, including Mudville Gazette; BlackFive; and American Thinker. All these blogs are dissecting bits and pieces of the narrative in the New Republic column, and finding all kinds of signs that it was a) made up, and b) done so by a known perpetrator of this kind of fraud. If things keep going in this direction, N.R. editors will have some apologizing to do -- again. Then the question will be, did they know and try to get away with something, or did they not know but publish the whole column without fact-checking because it so readily fits their worldview?

The blog at Mudville Gazette also includes a good number of left-leaning blog quotes on the content of the article. His point is that these kinds of columns need to be combatted because lefties want to believe them and are thus drawn to them, without any checking at all. And the comments he posts from them really show how the Left feels about the military: they hate them and think of them as barbaric killers.

So enough with the b.s. that the Left cares about the military. By and large, it just is not true. John Kerry was dissing the troops in the 70's when he accused them of committing all kinds of heinous crimes. And he still does it today. Late last year, he made a comment about how the U.S. military members were breaking into houses, terrorizing women and children. And there are many, many more who make the same kinds of wild comments and betray their real feelings about out military.

Liberals Argue By Lying

A report from the A.P. today describes a memo that Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman sent to the Senate, rebuking senator Hilary Clinton for asking the Pentagon questions about how they planned to pull out of Iraq. In the memo, Edelman pointed out that lines of questioning like this, in public, encourage the enemy and provide propaganda. He wrote, "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia." Pretty frank stuff for a political appointee.

Clinton responded not by addressing Edelman's point, but by blasting Edelman personally and taking shots at President Bush in the process. It was the usual pathetic defense we've seen so many times before by countless liberals who are incapable of defending their ridiculous and illogical positions.

Here is what Clinton's aide said: "Redeploying out of Iraq with the same combination of arrogance and incompetence with which the Bush administration deployed our young men and women into Iraq is completely unacceptable, and our troops deserve far better," and that military leaders should offer a withdrawal plan rather than "a political plan to attack those who question them."

The way the statement is written speaks volumes. First, the whole idea of "redeployment" is completely idiotic. Liberals know that the public doesn't broadly support outright withdrawal from Iraq, so they try and soften it by calling it "redeployment". Calling it something it isn't is dishonest and intended to mislead. This is, I've observed, a common characteristic of liberals' arguments: They won't admit to what they truly believe, and when criticizing conservatives, they intentionally mis-characterize the conservative position.

Second, the idea that President Bush "arrogantly and incompetently" dragged us into Iraq is ludicrous, as he could not have done so without Congress's approval. He made a compelling case at the time, Congress bought it and voted it in, and off we went. So to try and lay this whole thing at the feet of the President is unfair and, again, dishonest.

Third: "Our troops deserve better". This is stupid because no one in their right mind believes that liberals care more about the men and women in our military than conservatives do. The idea that the Left -- from which come colleges that ban military recruiters and allow students to disrupt public events when a conservative tries to speak; from which withdrawals from major combat always come -- wants what's best for the military and the Right does not, is beyond stupid.

Finally, the notion that our military leaders should not be fighting America's enemies in Iraq any more, but instead should be working out withdrawal plans, is cowardly and pathetic. But at least it's finally honest. That really is what they want. However, it's not what the public at large wants, and it's not the right or moral thing to do, in any case. Americans want the war to end, but not for America to lose. If we withdraw, or "redeploy" out of Iraq, the consequences would be disastrous. Liberals claim President Bush alienated our allies by going into Iraq. I don't believe that's true, but if you want to see alienation, pull out of Iraq now, before the job is done, and see what that produces. Bottom line: We should leave when we're finished, and not before. I don't care how long it takes. If it's worth doing, it must be won. Period.

Dennis Prager, the brilliant radio talk show host who I've listened to for decades, has a great motto: "I prefer clarity to agreement" Liberals don't care about clarity, apparently, they act on emotion and just want to win the argument at that moment. If they have to distort their own position to make it seem more palatable, or distort their opponent's position to make it seem more disgusting, they seem to be fine with that. Any way you slice it, it's dishonest and does not at all contribute to arriving at the "most correct" conclusions.

NBC Slanting Stories? Imagine That!

Liberals who disagree that the mainstream media is not overwhelmingly biased to the "left" are either blind/ignorant, or dishonest. It doesn't take 5 minutes out of any given day, looking through websites or TV news channels, to encounter slanted stories. Lib's who cannot see that simply see their own worldview represented in the media and agree with it, so think, "hey, no bias!" Conservatives see the same trash and get outraged, write emails - and make blog postings.


NBC News ran a story in the middle of May suggesting that the U.S. Army knew the body armor it supplies to troops is inferior. They compared what the troops get, "Interceptor", with another type of armor called "Dragon Skin" and had an "expert" who supposedly designed Interceptor testify on camera that he now believed Dragon Skin was superior. They ran tests in a lab that appeared to support this assertion.


Now the "Hot Air" blog has put up a video that details how the NBC case was not only fabricated, but that they willfully ignored the evidence supplied to them by the Army that proved Interceptor was the best choice. Watch the video and be amazed at how fraudulent Lisa Myers and NBC is in their piece. It is chilling, the extent to which media people will go to discredit the Bush administration and the military.


The only question is, will the public let this story go unanswered, as so often happens? Will NBC have to pay any kind of price for putting this garbage out in the mainstream? They've already caused significant damage.


As I went to the NBC site to lodge a complaint, I needed to go no further than the front page to see bias:

The headline is "Destruction Everywhere" about a bomb that went off today in a marketplace in Iraq, killing 100. The subhead next to it (conveniently), which is actually a separate story, says "Bush strategy losing support". This is the drum of the media these days - the president is wrong and losing support, and we're doomed in Iraq. Nevermind the progress our troops have been making since "the surge" and the new strategy over there. The fact that Iraqis everywhere are trusting us more and more, and turning on Al Qaeda in ever-larger numbers. No reporting about any of that. No, NBC wants us to lose in Iraq -- in fact, at this point they need us to lose in Iraq in order to vindicate them -- and so they push a negative slant on every Iraq story. It is truly disgusting, dishonest, and un-American.

While they're at it on that website, they have a link to another article that is anti-Catholic. Pope Benedict just announced he has removed the prohibition on the old Latin Rite of the Mass. MSNBC's headline reports the one negative aspect they could dredge out of this very positive report - "Pope's Latin Decree sparks Jewish concerns". This from a report that the ADL, which sees anti-Semitic messages absolutely everywhere, thinks Benedict's decree sets back Catholic-Jewish relations. Unbelievable.

If I ever watch NBC News again it will be too soon. And they wonder why more people watch Fox...