One Bible Story Liberals Do Like
Current Events/Brian Cherry
December 8, 2005 - One year, the great King of Israel, David, sent his army into battle against the Philistines. The season for battle, much like the hockey playoffs, was spring. Unfortunately for the military, David’s inner liberal came out this particular year and spring became the season when a young King’s fancy turns to thoughts of chubby interns, or in this case, a well formed, married, woman named Bathsheba.
This was especially unfortunate for one particular soldier named Uriah. Seeing as David now constructed his whole plan of battle not around victory, but around being able to continue inserting the royal scepter into Uriah’s wife, the poor soldier found himself out in front, sprinting bravely into battle, while every other soldier had quietly stopped their advance, and retired to their tents to play “Risk”.
It must have been quite a sight for Uriah, as he had just about reached the enemy line, when he takes a moment to look back and sees his entire army pointing and laughing at him. What the Philistines did to him at that point can only be described as a mercy killing.
From a military perspective, these tactics were more akin to Lucy yanking the football from Charlie Brown as he tries to kick it, than it was the victory over Goliath that resulted in a route of the Philistines. This is probably the only part of the Bible that liberals can relate to, trading victory for sex. You can almost hear Bill Clinton saying “Yeah baby!” while reading this passage during a prayer breakfast.
There is a very important lesson in this biblical story. Never charge into battle when somebody who is under the influence of liberalism is calling the shots. Perhaps Representative Murtha should have read this account from the life of David before meeting with Nancy Pelosi and agreeing to be the front man for the “Cut and Run” movement.
Mr. Murtha quickly found out that going to battle with a gaggle of liberals is kind of like charging up San Juan Hill with Bullwinkle the Moose. The deal he had with Pelosi was that he makes his statements, then they all spend months on the various news shows supporting the idea of surrendering in Iraq. Not one of them expected a confrontation where they would actually have to put actions to their words.
In the end, after a session in the house that included “progressive” chest pounding, big talk, and a very special moment when all the democrats booed a letter that was written by a soldier, they abandoned Murtha, and all but three voted to stay in Iraq. At this point, representative Murtha knew exactly how Uriah, as well as the troops Clinton abandoned in Mogadishu, felt. He led the charge, and his allies left him to be used as nothing more than an elected piñata for Conservatives.
He managed to make things worse when even he couldn’t support his own idea of pulling out of Iraq. He was not one of three votes that agreed to leave the conflict.
Ever since this national humiliation, the liberals have had the word hypocrite blinking ever more brightly on their foreheads. Abandoning Murtha was their one shining moment of intellectual honesty. They were caught in a confrontation with the Republicans where they couldn’t “nuance” their way around the issue. They had to fight, or leave the field of battle. In a defining moment for the entire Democratic Party, they Cut and Ran.
Since that moment they have been hiding behind the friendly microphones of their friends in the media, hurling insults from a safe distance. This is the one thing they are good at. It is comfy to them. It is actual confrontation that makes their feet sweat. Showing courage is unfamiliar territory, and something most of them have decided they can live without. In retaliation for being beaten so badly, and in such a public way, they have decided to take out their anger on the troops who are still fighting in Iraq. They find it easier to pick on folks who are thousands of miles away than to actually confront Conservatives in the arena of ideas where they have to support their policy preferences on something this high profile, with a vote.
Since voting down the bill to withdraw from Iraq, liberal spokes-poodle Nancy Pelosi, has again called for our withdrawal from Iraq. This time, however, nobody is making her back it up. She cites our military’s failure to make any progress as her reason for running away.
From any rational perspective this is nonsense. This is just playing to a whacko liberal base where research is as foreign a concept as free speech, civil rights for people who don’t agree with them, and soap.
The media, in an effort to prop up the democrats, is deliberately under-reporting progress in Iraq. This is an established, unchallengeable fact. The idea is if they simply don’t report good news, maybe nobody will hear about it, and it will simply go away. For example, there is a reason we don’t have news reports that talk about the “crumbling infrastructure of Baghdad” anymore. The truth is our military has rebuilt it. Rail stations and roads have been renovated and built. New water plants have opened. New electrical distribution centers have opened (the electrical infrastructure is now better than the one that was presided over in California when Gray was still Governor). Schools are being equipped with state of the art computers for the students. Add to this the fact that thousands of terrorists have found out the hard way (courtesy of the American military), that the afterlife has very little to do with deflowering seventy two virgins, and you have a pretty big success story that is being ignored.
The biggest sign of progress is that their voter turnout rate is higher than in most established democracies. Of course Ms. Pelosi would see none of this as progress. In the mind of the modern liberal, their progress only takes the form of body bags. The military is not failing; this does not help her cause, so she cannot reasonably call their success progress.
Howard Dean, in his criticism, continues to compare Iraq to Vietnam, while telling the press that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong". If you translate this complex stream of weasel words from their original “liberaleese” to English, it comes out something like this, “We will win in Iraq over my dead body”.
He is also under the opinion that anything compared to Vietnam will make it sound impossible, starting out with, “We are stuck in a quagmire, just like in Vietnam”. He might as well continue with, “The Conservatives won’t play nice with us, just like in Vietnam”, “The voters shot down gay marriage, just like in Vietnam”, and “I can’t get the stain out of this shirt, just like in Vietnam”. He can say it all he wants; the facts just don’t bear it out. For example, the liberals, as we know are absolutely obsessed with a body count. To equal the American fatalities in Vietnam, we would have to be at war in Iraq for approximately 57 years. This number that they consider so important is very un-Vietnam like. In fact, it is tantamount to being the safest war in American history. Facts are not Dean’s specialty though; they get in the way of a good complaint.
John Kerry has simply given up on faking all this patriotism stuff, and has opted for outright treason instead, calling our soldiers terrorists on a national news show. If called on the carpet about it, he will undoubtedly still maintain that he is a patriot, nuance something out of his backside, blame his wife, and sulk about Ohio in a corner somewhere.
Is this legacy of treason and cowardice something that FDR or JFK would have been proud to hand down to the American people? In reality, if FDR were President during the war on terror, he would have most of the liberal elite shot for treason. Were JFK alive today, he would be a Republican, and those who consider “Camelot” their heritage, would be on “Meet the Press” trashing him…patriotically, of course.
Current Events/Brian Cherry
December 8, 2005 - One year, the great King of Israel, David, sent his army into battle against the Philistines. The season for battle, much like the hockey playoffs, was spring. Unfortunately for the military, David’s inner liberal came out this particular year and spring became the season when a young King’s fancy turns to thoughts of chubby interns, or in this case, a well formed, married, woman named Bathsheba.
This was especially unfortunate for one particular soldier named Uriah. Seeing as David now constructed his whole plan of battle not around victory, but around being able to continue inserting the royal scepter into Uriah’s wife, the poor soldier found himself out in front, sprinting bravely into battle, while every other soldier had quietly stopped their advance, and retired to their tents to play “Risk”.
It must have been quite a sight for Uriah, as he had just about reached the enemy line, when he takes a moment to look back and sees his entire army pointing and laughing at him. What the Philistines did to him at that point can only be described as a mercy killing.
From a military perspective, these tactics were more akin to Lucy yanking the football from Charlie Brown as he tries to kick it, than it was the victory over Goliath that resulted in a route of the Philistines. This is probably the only part of the Bible that liberals can relate to, trading victory for sex. You can almost hear Bill Clinton saying “Yeah baby!” while reading this passage during a prayer breakfast.
There is a very important lesson in this biblical story. Never charge into battle when somebody who is under the influence of liberalism is calling the shots. Perhaps Representative Murtha should have read this account from the life of David before meeting with Nancy Pelosi and agreeing to be the front man for the “Cut and Run” movement.
Mr. Murtha quickly found out that going to battle with a gaggle of liberals is kind of like charging up San Juan Hill with Bullwinkle the Moose. The deal he had with Pelosi was that he makes his statements, then they all spend months on the various news shows supporting the idea of surrendering in Iraq. Not one of them expected a confrontation where they would actually have to put actions to their words.
In the end, after a session in the house that included “progressive” chest pounding, big talk, and a very special moment when all the democrats booed a letter that was written by a soldier, they abandoned Murtha, and all but three voted to stay in Iraq. At this point, representative Murtha knew exactly how Uriah, as well as the troops Clinton abandoned in Mogadishu, felt. He led the charge, and his allies left him to be used as nothing more than an elected piñata for Conservatives.
He managed to make things worse when even he couldn’t support his own idea of pulling out of Iraq. He was not one of three votes that agreed to leave the conflict.
Ever since this national humiliation, the liberals have had the word hypocrite blinking ever more brightly on their foreheads. Abandoning Murtha was their one shining moment of intellectual honesty. They were caught in a confrontation with the Republicans where they couldn’t “nuance” their way around the issue. They had to fight, or leave the field of battle. In a defining moment for the entire Democratic Party, they Cut and Ran.
Since that moment they have been hiding behind the friendly microphones of their friends in the media, hurling insults from a safe distance. This is the one thing they are good at. It is comfy to them. It is actual confrontation that makes their feet sweat. Showing courage is unfamiliar territory, and something most of them have decided they can live without. In retaliation for being beaten so badly, and in such a public way, they have decided to take out their anger on the troops who are still fighting in Iraq. They find it easier to pick on folks who are thousands of miles away than to actually confront Conservatives in the arena of ideas where they have to support their policy preferences on something this high profile, with a vote.
Since voting down the bill to withdraw from Iraq, liberal spokes-poodle Nancy Pelosi, has again called for our withdrawal from Iraq. This time, however, nobody is making her back it up. She cites our military’s failure to make any progress as her reason for running away.
From any rational perspective this is nonsense. This is just playing to a whacko liberal base where research is as foreign a concept as free speech, civil rights for people who don’t agree with them, and soap.
The media, in an effort to prop up the democrats, is deliberately under-reporting progress in Iraq. This is an established, unchallengeable fact. The idea is if they simply don’t report good news, maybe nobody will hear about it, and it will simply go away. For example, there is a reason we don’t have news reports that talk about the “crumbling infrastructure of Baghdad” anymore. The truth is our military has rebuilt it. Rail stations and roads have been renovated and built. New water plants have opened. New electrical distribution centers have opened (the electrical infrastructure is now better than the one that was presided over in California when Gray was still Governor). Schools are being equipped with state of the art computers for the students. Add to this the fact that thousands of terrorists have found out the hard way (courtesy of the American military), that the afterlife has very little to do with deflowering seventy two virgins, and you have a pretty big success story that is being ignored.
The biggest sign of progress is that their voter turnout rate is higher than in most established democracies. Of course Ms. Pelosi would see none of this as progress. In the mind of the modern liberal, their progress only takes the form of body bags. The military is not failing; this does not help her cause, so she cannot reasonably call their success progress.
Howard Dean, in his criticism, continues to compare Iraq to Vietnam, while telling the press that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong". If you translate this complex stream of weasel words from their original “liberaleese” to English, it comes out something like this, “We will win in Iraq over my dead body”.
He is also under the opinion that anything compared to Vietnam will make it sound impossible, starting out with, “We are stuck in a quagmire, just like in Vietnam”. He might as well continue with, “The Conservatives won’t play nice with us, just like in Vietnam”, “The voters shot down gay marriage, just like in Vietnam”, and “I can’t get the stain out of this shirt, just like in Vietnam”. He can say it all he wants; the facts just don’t bear it out. For example, the liberals, as we know are absolutely obsessed with a body count. To equal the American fatalities in Vietnam, we would have to be at war in Iraq for approximately 57 years. This number that they consider so important is very un-Vietnam like. In fact, it is tantamount to being the safest war in American history. Facts are not Dean’s specialty though; they get in the way of a good complaint.
John Kerry has simply given up on faking all this patriotism stuff, and has opted for outright treason instead, calling our soldiers terrorists on a national news show. If called on the carpet about it, he will undoubtedly still maintain that he is a patriot, nuance something out of his backside, blame his wife, and sulk about Ohio in a corner somewhere.
Is this legacy of treason and cowardice something that FDR or JFK would have been proud to hand down to the American people? In reality, if FDR were President during the war on terror, he would have most of the liberal elite shot for treason. Were JFK alive today, he would be a Republican, and those who consider “Camelot” their heritage, would be on “Meet the Press” trashing him…patriotically, of course.
neaky:
)