Asking a liberal to appreciate what the military has meant to this country is akin to asking a sloth to appreciate the branches that keep it high above the predators. For the sloth to value the contribution the branches make to its security, the dim witted mammal would require the ability to recognize a pattern. Liberals are handicapped in the area of pattern recognition. That is why the sun rising every morning still takes these folks by complete surprise.
Most liberals start every speech about the war in Iraq with the words, “We support the troops”. First of all, if they actually did support our soldiers they wouldn’t feel the need to keep reminding us how much they “support” the efforts of our young men and women in uniform. Support from liberals has come in some pretty unusual forms. Bill Clinton cut the pay of servicemen to the point where a large percentage of military personal needed to go on food stamps. They followed this up by dismantling the intelligence departments through the 90’s, and had the hubris to complain about the lack of intelligence before 9/11 and during the Iraq war, as an encore, the Clintons along with Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright gave North Korea the very nuclear technology they are now threatening us with. There is a better then 50/50 chance that American soldiers will eventually lose their lives in North Korea cleaning up this mess. Why is it that when a liberal supports our military it always resembles a swift kick to the groin?
This brings us back to the liberal’s pattern recognition problems. When a liberal is confronted with the undisputable results of their actions, they generally just look at you as if you have just handed them a dead squirrel. After this they will complain, at length, about Halliburton, then go and fantasize about sticking American soldiers with hat pins. This takes us to the ugliest cause and effect: the pattern they don’t want us to recognize. The actions of a liberal Senator and his allies in the media have verifiably caused the death of American soldiers in Iraq.
On May 9th 2005, Newsweek published an article that described desecration of the Quran by American military personnel. Ultimately, the story Newsweek presented turned out to be a fabrication. The damage had been done, though.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) followed this incident on June 14th, 2005 with comments about prisoners held at the military complex at Guantanamo Bay. Senator Durbin compared the treatment of Muslim prisoners by American soldiers to Russian Gulags and Nazi Germany. He cited turning up the air condition and playing them hip-hop music as part of the abuse the terrorists suffered. Fundamentally, according to Dick, we made these criminals cold and played them rap music. Durbin calls this Naziesque torture; around here that is called a Saturday night. Nazis conducted medical experiments on their prisoners and when they got bored, skinned some of them alive. Though I will agree that listening to Eminem is mildly unpleasant, I would rather sit through the “8 Mile” soundtrack then be skinned and have my hide turned into leather for some SS member’s briefcase. The day I can purchase Arab skin shoes at my local Walmart is the day Durbin can call our soldiers Nazis.
By now these events are both old news. What hasn’t been reported is that combat deaths of American soldiers in Iraq spiked after both of these incidents.
According to CNN, the months following the November, 2004 military offensive in Fallujah saw a drop in American combat deaths. From January, 2004 to the end of November, 2004, an average of 60 American soldiers per month died as a result of clashes with terrorists in Iraq. After the November Fallujah offensive, the number of combat deaths of American military personnel showed a steady decline (55 in January, 41 in February, 31 in March and 44 in April). The average dropped to 43 per month. May and June saw an increase in battle fatalities. The number jumped from the average of 43 to 69 for May and 67 in June. This increase in battlefield deaths coincides with the Newsweek story and the comments by Senator Durbin. Both incidents were covered heavily by Al Jazeera and other Middle Eastern news sources. Do you think the liberals can see this pattern, or will they stubbornly stick to their talking points and keep chanting, “Bush lied, Soldiers died!”
As the activity around the 2006 mid-term elections started to ramp up in 2005, the media became a shrill bullhorn of opinion polls and pundits editorializing about how the troops should come home. During this time of providing aid and comfort to the enemy the average number of soldiers killed between January and September of 2005 increased to 67 per month.
In September of 2005, Nancy Pelosi’s version of the “Apple Dumpl’in Gang” started a surge of their own. On September 16th 2005 Representative Murtha joined Pelosi’s effort to attack the war. For the next several months, Murtha called our troops “the enemy”; said that our military was "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth", and predicted a withdraw in 2006. During the first three months of his verbal assault on our troops, words that were echoed and sent all over the Arab world thanks to Al Jazeera, troop deaths went from an average of 67 to 83 per month for the rest of 2005.
Through 2006, the monthly average for soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq was 62. There were some months, such as March, where that rate was cut almost in half. Terrorists know who their allies in the war on terror are, and statements from such Democrats as Murtha and Ned Lamont gave Islamo-fascists the distinct impression that a Congressional takeover by the Democrats is what would save them from the fury of the American Military.
In the fall of 2006 not only did they step up their attacks on American forces in an effort to support the Democrats, terrorist groups such as the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad openly endorsed the Democrats in the mid-term election. Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, went so far as to say the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud." He also scoffed at the idea that terrorists would stop their activities if America leaves Iraq but rather said it would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."
From October of 2006, through the Democrat victory in the mid-term elections to the end of the year, the death of American military personnel in Iraq went from 62 per month to 101.
From the first day they took control of Congress, the Democrats were to the terrorists what Anthony Robbins is to beta-males and doormats everywhere. They inspired the wacky Muslims with talks of “re-deploying” our troops out of harms’ way and pulling funds from the troops. As the terrorists tried to validate the liberals call for retreat, their re-energized “insurgency” inflicted upon the American military an average of 88 deaths per month between January and March of 2007.
On April 19th, 2007 the Senate Majority Leader declared that “this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything”. By this point nobody should be shocked that American deaths in Iraq spiked after his comments. The 88 deaths per month went up to an average of 116 over the next three months.
Harry Reid’s comments about the surge being a failure was either wishful thinking on his part or definitive proof that the Nevada Senator has all the military instincts of a French pastry chef. Even before the surge was complete, and new offensive operations were in place, the effect was being felt. Not only did the month of July mark lowest number of American military deaths this year, but Muslim terrorists in large numbers were finding out that the afterlife may not be all they thought it was.
The frustration of a surge that was working and the fact that media is having trouble hiding this fact from the people resulted in an unusual moment of public honesty by a liberal politician. Democrat House Majority Whip James Clyburn spoke to the Washington Post about the impact a positive report on Iraq by General Petraeus would have on the Democrat party and their prospects for 2008. He said that “it would be a problem for us," and talked about how it would hamstring their efforts toward a retreat from the war. One has to wonder how lamenting the success of military is considered “supporting the troops”.
Most hard core liberals can only fantasize about killing American soldiers. Those pesky laws about murder and treason keep them from doing it themselves. They have gotten around that, by using Muslim terrorists to do their dirty work for them. Of course they don’t refer to them as terrorists. Most liberals just call them their core constituency.