Few Men are Brave by Nature

June 2, 2005 

Unnamed sources report that the NYT’s op-ed page reeks of tainted weenies.  In less time than it takes to digest a dirty water dog, the Times belched out three putridly namby-pamby “op-eds”.  The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene should rush over to the Times employee cafeteria and condemn it before any more damage is done.  What, besides an outbreak of food-poisoning, would induce the Times’ op-ed writers to put in print what should be deposited in their DEPENDS®

With the Times’ op-ed page spewing back-to-back polemic excrement from the America-hating bowels of Frank Rich, Bob Herbert and Paul Krugman...you might think that that Old Gray Lady is now the New Gray Porta Potty.  Unnamed sources report that these three “men” wake up every morning and, in vain, hope to find something under the covers other than their own poop. 

For some time now, I honestly thought that the limp-wristed opinion frothing from the Times was generic liberal Bush-bashing.  But, then I realized that this is the same genre of cowardice and defeatism that drove their fear-and-loathing of President Reagan.  These front-line troops of the liberal intelligentsia are nothing more, nor less, than quivering little weenies who would surrender faster than a French prostitute rather than face any challenge requiring more effort than watching a sommelier employ a corkscrew.  No doubt that a couple of hundred years ago they would have been sipping sherry with General Cornwallis.  

In a rambling piece of nonsense titled Ground Zero Is So Over (did Britney Spears sing that?), Frank Rich asks, “...What sane person would want to work in a skyscraper destined to be the most tempting target for aerial assault in the Western world?”  Geez Frank...what about working in Pearl Harbor, London, Dresden or Tokyo?  If you want dangerous...try working on a NY subway while you’re wearing an IPOD. 

After singing the Old Yellow Stain Blues for ten paragraphs, Rich finally arrives at his point...if there was a point to the article.  With a reference to Nightline’s Memorial Day roll call of the US war dead, Rich concludes that, “...it is a troubling but increasingly distant event to those Americans who...can and have turned the page”.  No wonder that people like CT Rep. Christopher Shays are, "...concerned that insurgents truly believe we'll give up, that we don't have the stamina.”  Perhaps the Times could bolster its sagging circulation with an Islamic edition. 

And speaking of Islamic editions, Bob Herbert celebrated the Memorial Day weekend in a state of denial.   

First (because Amnesty International told him so), Herbert posits that, “The U.S...operates hideous prison camps at Guantánamo Bay...where inmates have been horribly abused, gruesomely humiliated and even killed.”.  Next (with his head planted firmly in the sand), Herbert highlights that; “It's now known that many of the individuals swept up and confined at Guantánamo and elsewhere were innocent”.  Conveniently, he does not mention that many more of them are guilty of trying to destroy the United States and at least 12 have rejoined the terrorists after being released. 

For instance, Abdullah Mehsud who spent 25 months locked up at Guantanamo, became the commander of the Islamic militants who kidnapped two Chinese engineers in Pakistan's South Waziristan region and bombed an Islamabad hotel AFTER his release from Gitmo.  Before and after his incarceration at Guantanamo, Mehsud was, and is, a terrorist who declared jihad against America.  Herbert and his Amnesty International crowd would have you believe that Mehsud et al are innocent Sponge Bobs. 

Herbert really believes that, “the anger and rage among Muslims and others had been building for a long time, fueled by indisputable evidence of the atrocious treatment of detainees, terror suspects, wounded prisoners and completely innocent civilians in America's so-called war against terror”.  Was that before or after the “so-called” massacre on 911? 

Old blood and guts, Paul Krugman, has now morphed from an “economist” into a military strategist.  His concept of playing war envisions an “all-volunteer military...based on an implicit promise that those who serve their country in times of danger will also be able to get on with their lives”.  In Krugman’s GI Jane fantasy, “Full-time soldiers expect to spend enough time at home base to keep their marriages alive and see their children growing up”.  Krugman forgot to recommend that we coordinate our troops’ maternity leaves with those of “stay-at-home-dad” bin Laden’s. 

Krugman is white-knuckled that having to fight a war will prevent a “volunteer Army” from keeping Americans “safe - both from our enemies, and from the prospect of a draft”.  Can’t you just see the terrorists gloating in the certainty that America is populated by a fifth column of spineless weenies who will propagate defeatism throughout the land? 

Of course General Krugman stands in sharp contrast to Army Captain David Rozelle who lost his right foot when his Humvee ran over a land mine in Iraq.   

After months of multiple surgeries, physical therapy, and the adjustment to an artificial limb...Rozelle returned to an active duty command in Iraq.  When asked by National Review why he would ever go back to Iraq after losing a limb, Rozelle simply answered, “It is my duty.”  When asked if it was tough on his marriage, Rozelle replied “I am a warrior...Those that are afraid to leave their family to accomplish something great will never achieve anything.”  Who do you want to count on when the going gets tough...General Krugman or Captain Rozelle? 

The elite media has a history of myopia.  Where were the Times’ op-ed crew when the Hanoi Hilton was open for business?  As Americans were being systematically tortured and murdered by the North Vietnamese, the intelligentsia at the Times were smoking pot and accusing the U.S. of “war crimes”.  But, what do you expect from a bunch of pseudo-urbane twits who are afraid of Ann Coulter and in love with Hanoi Jane.  These are the same geniuses who fussed that President Reagan “might” incite a war with the former Soviet Union.  Was that before or after the Berlin Wall crumbled?


return to column archives

home - columns - images - bio - contact - links

dansargis.org is proudly listed as a townhall.com RightPage

All content copyright 2000 - 2025 dansargis.org