Who The Liberals Really Are

When the Democrats tell you who they are, what they think, and what they intend to do, believe them. When they claim (with Oscar-worthy straight faces) they “support the troops,” their history– both past and recent — betrays that vacuous claim.

Last week, Senator Barack Obama made his third big mistake, the result of a series of on-the-fly policy pronouncements. Mistake Number One was his statement that he’d move more aggressively into Pakistan if, as president, he had “actionable intelligence” about al Qaeda operating there. The statement itself was quite hawkish, so the mistake wasn’t on the policy, it was political: he ticked off his liberal base, which does not want escalated military action in Pakistan, or frankly, anywhere else. Mistake Number Two came when he tried to fix Mistake Number One: he said he’d take nuclear weapons “off the table.” This brought him back into the liberal lovenest, but just about everyone else thought it was “naïve and irresponsible.”

Then came the Third Big Mistake. He was asked about U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, and he said this: “We’ve got to get the job done there. And that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.”

Throwing American troops down the stairs. It may have been the first time Obama has done it, but it’s not the first time his party has.

Another liberal Junior Senator repeatedly made wild accusations about the conduct of the American military in a different war:

“…they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”

The year was 1971, the war was Vietnam, and the man was an aspiring politician (and president) named John Kerry.

The routine was the same: Accusing U.S. troops of widespread barbaric acts. Equating them with the savage beasts they were fighting. Essentially saying that they are no better than the enemies trying to kill them—and us.

Where else have you heard a similar tune recently? In the pages of The New Republic, a left-leaning publication, that ran columns from Iraq, written by an anonymous soldier, called “Baghdad Diarist.” In these columns, the soldier accused his fellow troops of “mocking and sexually harassing a woman whose face had been marred by an I.E.D.” and “one soldier of wearing part of an Iraqi boy’s skull under his helmet,” among other things.

The Weekly Standard raised some serious questions about those “reports,” forcing The New Republic to identify the writer as Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp. The military then did its own thorough investigation and found that the allegations made by Beauchamp were “false.” Beauchamp himself signed statements recanting the stories as “exaggerations and falsehoods.”

It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to see an ugly pattern here. Liberals with a predilection for slanderously and maliciously skewering American troops in order to further their own agendas.

This is who the liberals are. This is what they believe. These are the “values” they would bring if they win the presidency and hence, the role of commander-in-chief.

At least Senator Hillary Clinton was smart enough to “decline to comment” on Obama’s remark about our troops in Afghanistan. But remember: she and Bill slashed military budgets when they were president the first time around. During his draft evasion days, he was on record as saying he “loathed” the military. He was accused of using the military during times of personal political crisis, and only from politically safe heights of 30,000 feet.

John Kerry, 1971. Bill and Hillary Clinton, 1992-2000. Harry “the war is lost” Reid, 2007. The New Republic, a few months ago. Barack Obama, last week. They are all cut from the same cloth, singing the same refrain. And despite their self-serving and empty rhetoric to the contrary, it isn’t about “supporting the troops.”