Why do these people seem to salivate every time an American soldier is killed doing his duty, as if hoping that when some magical number -- 2,500? 3,000? -- is reached, the American people will rise up and insist that we pull out, thus guaranteeing that not only will the terrorists win, but ensuring that our young warriors will have died in vain?
It can only be that they hate the president more than they love liberty, hate Bush more than they hate the Islamic butchers. Why else would they insist that on a specific date we wave the white flag, turn tail, and run?
To me, the miracle is that even after a war has been waged and after all these months of terrorist attacks, the total of fatalities is still less than the number we lost on 9/11. And whereas we have nothing to show for the loss of those 3,000 lives aside from grief, 25 million Iraqis have been rescued from a bloody tyrant and have actually held a free election. A pox on those who insist that our soldiers have been sacrificed for no good reason. It’s the same reason that good people have died at Bunker Hill and Gettysburg and Iwo Jima.
I happen to live in a town filled with people who speak about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove, with the same sort of vituperation that used to be directed at the likes of Hitler, Goebbels, Goering, and Eichmann.
In Hollywood, where liberals rule the roost -- and cause sane people to give thanks that these knuckleheads only make movies, not national policy -- one could get the idea that they would move heaven and earth to elect a Democrat. But, recently, I experienced an epiphany. It occurred to me that, for all their garment-rending when Republicans win elections, after all is said and done, they are really only actors. And, for all their carrying on, each of them is merely playing the role of a concerned citizen.
What happened is that I read that, in preparation to make her presidential run in 2008, Sen. Clinton left Hollywood, after being guest of honor at three fund-raising events hosted and attended by all the usual suspects, with about an extra $750,000 in her war chest.
That may sound like a lot of money just for showing up at a few parties and having a bunch of smarmy pea-brains tell you you’re every bit as wonderful as you think you are. But for these people, that’s chump change. Assuming there were, say, 300 people at these gigs, it works out to just $2,500-a-head. That’s less than these folks spend on a sofa. Heck, it’s less than they spend on lunch!
But, lest it seem that I’m just picking on well-meaning amateurs, and mere millionaires at that, let us consider George Soros. As you may recall, back in 2004, Mr. Soros would start foaming at the mouth at the mere thought that President Bush might be re-elected.
Now this is the same fellow who, rather like Sen. Kennedy, whose money mainly comes to him through a low-taxed family trust fund, demands that taxes be raised on the wealthy. Soros, himself, keeps nearly all of his loot safely out of the grubby hands of the IRS in off-shore accounts.
How much does George Soros hate George Bush? What price did he place on driving this evil creature from the Oval Office? I believe the figure I most often saw bandied about was roughly $30 million. A tidy sum, I’ll acknowledge. But rumor has it that the man could cash out at about $1.2 billion. Which means that even after the election, he was a long way from pauperhood with $1.17 billion left for food, rent, and any incidentals that might arise, such as purchasing Rhode Island.
Now if you had $1.2 billion at your disposal and you honestly believed that George Bush was really Adolf Hitler without the Chaplin moustache, wouldn’t you think you might be willing to spend slightly more than two percent of your net worth to send him scurrying back to Crawford?
So the next time you run into any of these dunderheads carrying on about the fascists running America, tell them it’s all their fault -- that if only they weren’t such penny-pinching cheapskates, John Kerry would be president today.
And then thank them and shake their hand.