After reading this post over at Ace of Spades HQ I got a bit miffed and posted a response to a comment. Sad part is that guy who posted the comment probably already realizes all of this and is trying to defend people like himself who support the country and the military but who are against Bush and the war on terrorism. Or rather I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt since another one of his comments makes it appear that he is simply trying to justify his position without having to actually act in a way that supports his assertions. So I take his comments to task, having been in his position I know what it's like, but I also know you could be anti-Clinton and anti-war in Kosovo without being anti-military or anti-American, and without letting those sentiments create collateral damage on your country.
Heres a copy of the post I left:
"It is unAmerican to take a contrarian vp everytime." I agree. We see this knee-jerk reaction coming to the left on everything military or Republican. I see it from Democrats on a mass basis. They oppose Gitmo not because it is a problem, but because they want it to be a problem and they oppose it from a knee-jerk reaction. They have yet to put a single valid argument against it. They're big on unsupported opinion (prove that Gitmo creates terrorists without media bashing and leftist bashing alone on its own) and have absolutely no answers. They accuse American GIs of heinous acts with no valid proof other than a terrorist follows the AQ training manual and makes false claims.More on Clinton. I like Clinton on a personal level, probably enjoy having a beer with the man. I wouldn't let him chaperone my teenage daughters (don't have any, but wouldn't do it anyway), but I do feel he wants to do the right thing, but is weak-willed and easily influenced by people who would rather maintain their political power than benefit the country. I count his wife, and the Democrat party among those. I don't think the Republicans are much better, but I have observed that in practice they are better, not through any kind of good will, but solely because they can't get away with as much. The media is far more willing to go after Republicans, and far less willing to hide their transgressions and lies.
You'll notice that when the left hands out the benefit of doubt they give it freely to America's enemies but totally withhold it from America's GIs. They claim credit for uncovering Abu Ghraib months after the military started their own investigation and issued a press release about it.
Anything supported by the majority of GIs they knee-jerk against. If Bush supports it their against it. If Republicans are for it they're suddenly against it, even if they supported it in the past (such as Social Security reform or winning in Iraq). The GIs and Bush are pro-success in Iraq, and major Democrat Kucinich now wants us to cut and run and abandon Iraq to the terrorists.
"Any recent and past criticism of the President's initiation of this war, when Syria, northern Pakistan and Iran were more likely pulse points of terrorism tied specifically to 9/11, is freedom of speech and conscience."
Any time anyone left or right advocates handing victory over to America's enemies then it IS treasonous, and is anti-American, and IS evil. It is worse when they actively support victory for America's allies and those who you champion in that sentence have been far more guilty of this than the right wing nut-jobs.
"I understand why some conservative feel liberals are unAmerican. I've watched Fox news and heard Rush Limbaugh. I hope you realize that Liberals are constantly blugeoned with hate speech from some on the right." Hardly bludgeoned since the overwhelming majority of outlets are left-leaning, Fox News hating, and reach a larger audience than moderate and conservative, and right-wing radio and Fox. ABC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NY Times, LA Times, Seattle PI, Oregonian, etc far outweigh the moderate to conservative voices out there.
" Don't forget there are some liberals who are patriotic, like myself, who simply disagree with much of what's going on."
I won't forget that. I was a Democrat through much of my enlistment, supported most gay issues and am still very liberal. I was driven from the party by Clinton, the party, and liberals who were anti-military, and who tolerated (and sometimes supported) anti-Americanism and anti-American groups (such as ANSWER and the CPUSA). I know there are liberals out there who, if they were running the show, would kick out anti-Americans (and people who advocate troops killing their officers and support people who kill Americans) from anti-war demonstrations. I know there are liberals who would kick those people out of their anti-Bush demonstrations (yes I believe it is possible to be anti-Bush without being anti-American, but in practice it is rarely ever seen beyond lip service to the theory).
Problem is those liberals aren't in charge, they have no power and they refuse to stand up to those in charge and to those who poison their cause. I assert that because I have yet to see a liberal lambaste an anti-American at a rally and try to have them removed, and because of the response from the anti-war crowd towards the pro-America crowd.