Replies

I'd like to express my appreciation for both your comments.

I have been incensed at the left, not for their dissent, but for the blatant hypocrisy of their dissent.

From Garofalo's, "It wasn't hip" lack of concern during the Clinton wars to Hillary's "Not one American soldier had died in Haiti." and Rangel's "we didn't lose one member of the armed forces. Not anyone was injured. Not by accident." to DeGenova's "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military," and "I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus." to Moore's "that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end."

I have clearly understood the left only sees the military as expendable political tools whether subordinate to their CINC, or for political smearing when not.

A classic example of a leftist recognizing this is Ron Silver's journey from "Those are our planes now" to post-9/11 war supporter.

The difference in dissent is stark:

One of Bill Clinton's first major acts as president was to deploy US Marines to Haiti in order to restore Jean Bertrand Aristide, their first democratically-elected left wing dictator, to power. I wholeheartedly disagreed with this operation. I don't think the entire island of Haiti is worth the life of one US Marine. That being said, the second that the decision was made to deploy the troops I completely dropped my objection and got behind the game. I hoped that the troops would get there, kill anyone that needed killing, accomplish their objective as quickly as possible, and come home victorious. Never, in a million years, would I have hoped for US troops to die simply so I could point my fingers at Bill Clinton and say, "I told you so."

The anti-American left exists. It is distinct from the patriotic isolationists.

Thanks. These liberals who get joy in seeing our soldiers die so they can bash Bush, are some the sickest people on this planet. Someone needs to tell Charlie Rangel that while no soldiers may have died in "Clinton's Wars," no peace was won, either. Haiti and Kosovo are bigger messes today because Clinton didn't have the personal courage to fullfil his obligations he made when he committed action to those countries. Which also means that more American men and women may die in the future to really fix those problems.

You'd also think that Charlie would understand that bombing someone from 15,000 feet is alot different from fighting someone from 50 feet. One president took his committment seriously...regardless of the political fallout, because it was more important to resolve the conflict, now...instead of having to fight it again in the future. For liberals to give Clinton credit for no US deaths when the very tactic taken in Kosovo lead to more civilian deaths, again, just shows their hypocrisy. Ironically, we are losing more people now in Clinton's so-called peaceful Kosovo, than we did during his war. These are really some sick people.