Main Forums > The Roundtable

Column: Liberals are going to get us all killed!

(1/1)

Otherguy Overby:
http://shorterlink.com/?XPFD9W

(Posted on townhall.com)


--- Quote ---Liberals will get us all killed
By Kevin McCullough
Tuesday, July 4, 2006

One of my regular listeners - Frank from Staten Island reminded me midway through my broadcast this last week, "Kevin you don't say it enough anymore!"

"What's that," I asked him.

"What you used to say, you know, you remember - Liberals are going to get us all killed!"

Frank's right, I don't say it as much anymore and yet there may be nothing more important for our nation to understand than the reality of that statement. Liberals don't have a clear cut sense of right and wrong. They are fuzzy when it comes to moral absolutes, and they sure don't seem to have any clue when it comes to national security.

Don't believe me? Then how 'bout a refresher?

We started seeing it years ago when liberal broadcast outlets like CNN were caught red-handed tailoring the news from their Baghdad bureau to meet the criteria of Saddam Hussein. It was amplified even more slightly when Dan Rather made trips to interview Saddam, Osama, and other world leaders that hated America. Heck, even CBS finally had enough when he just flat out started making things up using forged memos during the election. But now they've hired Katie Couric so has the EYE really learned anything? (Sorry! I apologize for the rhetorical question.)

Fast forward a bit the last liberal presidential candidate decided that he was for fighting terrorists before he was against fighting them. Plenty more on him in a minute...

More recently liberal voices in the print press have been reckless both with what they did report (secret programs aimed at giving us the upper hand in our fight with those who would like to sever our head from our bodies). And what they didn't (discovery of enough WMD in Iraq to kill 8.3 million persons - like the isle of Manhattan or the entire urban metro of Chicago).

Take the New York Times for example. In their direct reporting of how we were spying on the conversations that Al Qaeda were having with sleeper cells in our nation via specific types of cell phones - guess what? Those who would behead stopped using those types of communications methods. Now we don't quite have the same advantage to knowing their whereabouts because some liberal who doesn't believe he would ever be beheaded thought he'd win a Pulitzer.

Then there's crazy Uncle Jack. Jack Murtha, "the Congressman who can't", has been propagating the theory for the last six weeks that our young marines should have allowed IED's to not only blow their fellow soldiers to smithereens in Haditha, but when they took fire they should have never fired back. See with liberals its always American citizens who should be killed not those who would behead. Now it turns out that someone let crazy Uncle Jack near the defense appropriations at the last congressional booze-fest and his anti-war views have actually possibly benefited several people who have relatives in the democratic caucus in Congress.

Of course the New York Times couldn't bring itself to report on that because it would, well... it's just not useful for their particular viewpoint.

The same could be said for the discovery of 500 chemical weapons in Iraq that defied the U.N. Security Council resolutions, proved Saddam lied about possessing such weapons, and still in fact exist in lethal forms in Iraq. No, the New York Times would prefer that these weapons be ignored so that the insurgents actually find them first and begin to use them against American troops. (Remember - Americans are the only ones who should die - not those who would behead!)

Of course the New York Times has grown a malignant offspring on the west coast, and between the two papers they believed it right and proper to announce to all the terrorists who use the internet, how we are tracking the funds they are funneling towards future attacks. Using this method we were able to actually catch the man responsible for the Bali bombing, and an Al Qaeda operative in Brooklyn who had funneled $200,000 to operatives in the Middle East. This program would actually help save American lives so of course - it must be stopped!

In the meantime Senator John Kerry (not him again) is running around running for president and watching his legislative efforts fall short in the Senate by like 86-13. Now I know I grew up in Texas and all but that sounds like a whoopin' from even where I come from. His legislation called for the immediate pullout of our troops from the Global War on Terror. It probably didn't help him that we had hit the number on War on Terror target just hours before. But imagine if we hadn't. Then Zarqawi would have been free to run around the countryside beheading even more Americans - something the left always smiles upon.

And finally the five liberal members of the Supreme Court put the cherry on the sundae by saying this week that the killer beasts being held in camp GITMO must be given access to the U.S. Criminal Courts, Miranda rights, fair trial, blah, blah, blah... What those five justices seem to forget is that were any one of these 450 animals to get loose from their chains once on American soil that they might behead one of them as anyone else.

Frank is right. I need to say it more often.

Liberals will get us all killed.

Nathaniel Firethorn:
OT: What's the difference between shorterlink.com and tinyurl.com?

- NF

Headless Thompson Gunner:
Liberals won't get ALL of us killed.  But they'll probably get some of us killed, if the rest of can't stop them.

El Tejon:
If they would only confine their efforts to their own kind, I would not care.  So, if the upper west side of Manhattan or D.C. or New Jersey or Boston were the only places that would suffer, it would not be so bad and we could stop fighting and let the Muslims win.

Navigation

[0] Message Index