Unbelievable

The left always likes to tout their pro-military credentials by parading in front of the American people real, honest-to-goodness military personnel that parrot the anti-war feelings that they hold so dear, with the idea that, because they have actually served, their words are unimpeachable. This was their logic behind nominating John Kerry for the presidency when it was perceived that they needed to bolster their national defense credentials. The problem that they continue to run into, though, is credibility. People start to scratch their heads about John Kerry complaining about being sent on a mission into Cambodia in his much-famed swift boat by President Nixon the Christmas before Nixon entered the White House.
Once again they have run into that same pesky little hurdle known as honesty. The New Republic, a very left-leaning periodical that has been highly critical of Bush (no surprise there) and the war in Iraq recently has published postings from the diary of an honest-to-goodness authentic military man serving in Iraq. The postings that this soldier has sent to the New Republic have documented how serving in the military in the war in Iraq has dehumanized our young men and women and turned them into barbaric savages, just as John Kerry testified. His stories told of he and his companions mocking a women in a mess tent in Iraq whose face had been "melted" by an IED, of one soldier wearing the fragment of a child's skull found in a mass grave, and of armored vehicle drivers reveling in destroying streets and running over dogs. You can almost hear this modern-day John Kerry testifying of our soldiers committing acts reminiscent of Genghis Khan. The problem? When confronted with these stories, the soldier admitted, under oath, that they were made up. Apparently, he wasn't even in Iraq when he claimed to be eating in an Iraqi mess tent, mocking a woman who had an unfortunate encounter with an IED. He was safely far away in Kuwait. And none of the other stories were true, either. It also turns out that he admitted to his family that he enlisted in the military so that he would have unimpeachable credentials later in life to write on military matters. Hmmm, wonder if this guy is from Massachusetts and one day plans on running for president. Democrats can't come up with real atrocity stories about our military, so they have to now make them up. Despite the soldiers sworn testimony that his stories were lies, the New Republic still stands by them. Kind of like Dan Rather standing by the forged documents about Bush's National Guard service. Sure, the source was lying, but the story is true. We just have no evidence to prove it. But we believe it, and it fits with our preconceived notions, so it must be true.
Finally, I thought I would share this little tidbit. Occasionally, as I have mentioned before, I venture over into the little known world of liberal talk radio to see what the other side is saying. This is in contrast to Democrats, who avoid conservative talk radio like Dracula avoids garlic. They prefer to parrot what the media tells them to believe. Anyways, I was listening to Ed Schultz on Monday, and he had as his guest Chris Dodd, the Democratic senator who is running a barely noticed run for the Democratic presidential nomination. They were discussing Congress' passing of legislation to authorize President Bush to intercept communications by terrorists, regardless of where they originate or end, without a warrant. Dodd was opposed to this. Schultz, playing devil's advocate, brought up the point that people will argue that this is only to monitor terrorists. Dodd, in a statement that floored me, said that we can't single out groups because we disagree with them. If we single out one group today, where does it end? Tomorrow, we will spy on everyone. Excuse me? Terrorists are a special interest group that we should not discriminate against? This guy is putting terrorists on the same level as, say, a religious group, or a racial group? These guys are murderous thugs, planning the destruction of innocents, and Chris Dodd doesn't think we should single them out because we disagree with them? I'm sorry, but even the kookiest of the Republican candidates, Ron Paul, isn't this insane, and Chris Dodd isn't even the lowest on their electoral totem pole. Chris Dodd honestly believes that tracking the communications of terrorists will lead us onto a slippery slope towards the government listening in on Joe Blow's phone call? Moronic doesn't even come close to describing this guy. He's lucky that nobody actually listens to liberal talk radio, or this would surely sink his prospects, and maybe even jeopardize his future in the Senate. Then again, do we really believe that he isn't simply expressing what all of the Democrat party believes?