Liberals have a point and are certainly tired of being called anti-American and anti-Military when so many of them aren't. Certainly some are, and we've seen these people at anti-war rallies prior to Afghanistan and prior to Iraq. Patriotic liberals don't feel that they deserve those labels, and most certainly don't. The problem, however, isn't their personal beliefs, it's not usually the words they speak. The problem is with their actions and the company they keep.
The comment I left:
You're known by the company you keep and so long as pro-American liberals continue to keep company with groups such as the ISM, ANSWER, or CAIR you'll be painted with a wide brush. So long as anti-war activists refuse to speak up and kick anti-American elements (such as those cheering on terrorists and "insurgents" in Iraq, and urging American GIs to kill their officers) then moderates and conservatives will associate your views, beliefs and desires with theirs.
It may not be right but that's the way it is. Hopefully the next time a pro-military protest is called to counter an anti-military protest by the likes of Code-Pink you'll choose better bedfellows between the two.
It is, after all, possible to be against Bush and against the Iraqi war without having to associate with, demonstrate with, and support groups and people who are actually (unlike yourselves) anti-American and anti-Military.
As an aside, the same thing applies to those who hate Bush. So long as they ally and keep company with those who are anti-American they will be seen as anti-American. So long as Bush haters allow their hatred to spill over and hurt the country and its military in their efforts to "get Bush" they will be seen as radical anti-Americans. I think this is what has happened with Durbin and Kucinich and a large number of Democrats. They want to destroy Bush so badly they don't care who they hurt in the process.