Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 20, 2009


Not that Democrats, liberals and other assorted children are ever held to account by the mainstream media for the idiocies they utter, the falsehoods they espouse or the tidbits they peddle, but for what it’s worth, I’m more than willing – as a small-time, no-name, blog jockey interested in what’s right – to do whatever I can to help keep an already lopsided ship from completely capsizing. (Isn’t that awfully kind of me?)

Like them, I am a tally-keeper. I like to keep track of that which the media does not.

Leftocrats, as anyone who pays attention knows, are big on noting anniversaries and milestones – particularly when the landmark moment runs antithetical to the agendas that drive them to the vapid chasms where they dwell and whine.

Take the war.

Recall when the American casualty totals in the Iraq War reached enticingly delicious, headline-friendly round numbers – 2,000, 3,000, 4,000. Was there any available space to be found in newsprint or on news websites that did not explode in orgasmic delight over reporting these morbid mileposts?

A collective change of undergarments were needed by the mainstreamers as they reveled in the death toll.

Recall how the airwaves were saturated with their objective venom when the one-year anniversary of President Bush’s infamous “mission accomplished” speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln came along. It was all anyone in America heard from the mainstream media – how George Bush misled or lied or whatever. It was as if those charged to report the news in an unbiased, objective way were glad – positively giddy, you might say – at the difficult days America was having in the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad.

Actually, it wasn’t even a potential American defeat or the tally of the fallen warriors that fuelled lib contempt of the war. (I don’t think most of them could care less one way or another, to be honest). Rather, because the war was George W. Bush’s, it immediately (instinctively) became an anathema to the Left.

If Bush had found the cure to cancer, the Left would have portrayed malignant tumors as victims.

They didn’t hate George W. Bush because of the war. The hated the war because of George W. Bush.

Recall that as the situation in Iraq improved, hardly any mention of America’s victories and accomplishments there ever found their way from the cackling tongues of the media masses – and there were many, especially after The Surge was implemented. The New York Times, Washington Post, et al, simply wouldn’t dirty their pages with American triumphss, lest it directly conflict with their anti-war agendas. Yet, every car bomb, explosion or otherwise loud boom drew “breaking news” crawls.

When it became clear that The Surge was working, not only was it regularly glossed over by the leftist media (redundant, I know), but the war became almost invisible and irrelevant to them.

In the spirit of commemoration, I’d like to take a moment to note the two-year anniversary (yesterday) of these words uttered by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada:

I believe, myself, that the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense – and you have to make your own decision to what the President knows – that this war is lost and that The Surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.

It was, in fact, one of the more tasty Democrat foot-in-mouth moments not subject to mass-media scrutiny, anniversary fanfare or round table revisiting.

What Reid was attempting to do was draw some sort of parallel between President George Bush and President Lyndon Johnson more than forty years earlier. Johnson knew in 1964 that the war in Vietnam was lost, according to Reid.

That’s why I’m here – noting it for posterity – with the United States poised for victory in Iraq.

Here’s a 2007 flashback from the Fox News Channel. (Warning: Senator Harry Reid is speaking in this video clip. May cause nausea, disgust or general apathy).

Don’t you just get that warm, fuzzy feeling knowing that it is the party of Harry Reid that now holds the security of the United States of America in their hands?



  1. EricTheRed said

    Glad you’re back, Andrew. Missed you!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: