The US Military: The Left’s Salvation Army

Pages: 1 2

“Humanitarian” seems to be the Democrats’ new word for “absolutely no national interest.”

The Democrats were not so interested in a “humanitarian” intervention against a much more brutal dictator in Iraq. But, of course, taking out Saddam Hussein, a state sponsor of terrorism who harbored one of the perpetrators of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, would make Americans safer.

Democrats are furious whenever American boys (girls and gays) are put in harm’s way — unless the troops are on a mission that has nothing whatsoever to do with defending the United States.

Obama ignored the murder, imprisonment and torture of peaceful Iranian protesters demonstrating against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s theft of an election in 2009. But he was hopping mad about Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak getting rough with a mob in Tahrir Square with less distinct objectives.

We knew what the Iranian students wanted: a stolen election overturned.

What did the Egyptians want? At the time, liberals angrily cited the high unemployment rate in Egypt as proof that Mubarak was a beast who must step down.

Have they, by any chance, seen the recent employment numbers for the U.S.? The only employment sectors showing any growth are Hollywood sober-living coaches and medical marijuana dispensaries. Are we one jobs report away from liberals rioting in the streets?

As The New York Times recently reported, since Mubarak stepped down, the driving force in the new government is the Muslim Brotherhood. America is worse off because Mubarak stepped down, which was Obama’s exact foreign policy objective.

On Monday night, Obama gave a speech intended to explain America’s mission and purpose in our new Libyan adventure. He said: “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.”

He forgot to add: “However, the United States of America will be turning a blind eye to atrocities in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, the Ivory Coast and Bahrain.”

One searches in vain for a description of some American interest in supporting the rebels in Libya.

True, Gadhafi was responsible for numerous terrorist acts against Americans in the 1980s, including blowing up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 270 people, including 189 Americans.

Soon after President Bush’s 9/11 speech vowing to go to war not only with terrorists, but those who supported them, Gadhafi accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and paid the victims’ families $8 million apiece.

Pages: 1 2

  • Jasmine Davis

    Love you as always Ann!

    Thank you for being a voice for all freedom-loving Americans!


    • Phillip Galey

      I kind of wonder, if when people begin to see the ghosts of the dead bodies which surround the Clintons, if in the same remove they won't then begin also, to understand the deviousness which inheres in the Democrat mentality, . . . it's amazing, the destructive waste in munitions for things in satisfaction of absolutely no national interest—whatsoever!
      And Ann, doing the job of at least two men, . . .Enter text right here!

  • tkellybal

    This is indicative of the Left's fixation on equality. Not only do they seek a level playing field of mediocrity amongst individuals, but amongst nations as well. The Left chafes at America's excellence, and wishes to diminish her status. If a progressive, leftist, or liberal (e.i. most Democrats) supports something, you know damned well it will weaken America.

  • geez

    It's my opinion that the hand cuffing and diluting of our military over the years has lead to their suicide numbers necessarily rising. If the US military is unleashed in war (vs. wagged by the un/nato/obama tail… in that order) it shouldn't take long before everyone knows where they stand. That's how war ends quickly and decisively. The soldiers would know they are only used when absolutely required. And if we have to move resources to back the one warning given to a potential adversary, that adversary would pay every penny of the cost of moving the resources as well as the cost to return them to their original position, then throw in wear and tear.

  • Alan

    It would be bad enough if U.S. President Hussein only committed the U.S. to wars not serving the national interest; what's worse is his proclivity toward deliberately serving the interests of the country's enemies.

  • Tar_n_Feathers

    I think the administration's motivation for military action may even be more shallow than Ann asserts. Dems would be more than happy to get involved in just about anything military as long as the name Bush isn't connected to it, and they can score some PR points along the way.

  • umustbkidding

    Exactly right – we are there for fun!

  • Jim_C

    "Democrats are furious whenever American boys (girls and gays) are put in harm’s way — unless the troops are on a mission that has nothing whatsoever to do with defending the United States."

    And 8 years in Iraq was…defending the United States?

    That's a good one.

  • Maxie

    Not altruism but a psychological compulsion to homogenize humanity in the Leftist's futile quest to justify his own otherwise useless existence.