The US Military: The Left’s Salvation Army


Pages: 1 2

After Bush invaded Iraq, Gadhafi suspended Libya’s nuclear and chemical weapons program, inviting international inspectors to verify that the programs had been halted.

A few years after that, Gadhafi paid millions of dollars to the victims of other Libyan-sponsored terrorist attacks from the ’80s. In return, President Bush granted Libya immunity from terror-related lawsuits.

Only Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly thinks Obama is intervening in Libya to avenge the Lockerbie bombing.

However far off the mark Gadhafi is from being the Libyan George Washington, he poses no threat to the U.S. — whereas the rebels we are supporting might.

But Democrats couldn’t care less about the interests of their own country. Indeed, if there were the slightest possibility that our intervention in Libya would somehow benefit the United States, they would hysterically oppose it.

When it came to the Iraq War — which actually served America’s security interests — Democrats demanded proof that Saddam Hussein was 10 minutes away from launching a first strike against the U.S. They denounced the Iraq War nonstop, wailing that Saddam hadn’t hit us on 9/11 and that he posed no “imminent threat” to America.

What imminent threat does Libya pose to the U.S.? How will our interests be served by putting the rebels in charge?

Obama didn’t even suggest the possibility that our Libyan intervention serves the nation’s interest. Last weekend, his defense secretary, Robert Gates, said the uprising in Libya “was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest.” So, not a vital interest, but an interest. Like scrapbooking, surfing or Justin Bieber.

When it came to Iraq, liberals proclaimed that invading a country “only” to produce a regime change was unjustifiable, contrary to international law, and a grievous affront to the peace-loving Europeans.

But they like regime change in Egypt, Libya — and the Balkans. The last military incursion supported by liberals was Clinton’s misadventure in the Balkans — precisely because Slobodan Milosevic posed no conceivable threat to the United States.

Indeed, President Clinton bragged: “This is America at its best. We seek no territorial gain; we seek no political advantage.” Democrats see our voluntary military supported by taxpayer dollars as their personal Salvation Army.

Self-interested behavior, such as deploying troops to serve the nation, is considered boorish in Manhattan salons.

The only just wars, liberals believe, are those in which the United States has no stake. Liberals warm to the idea of deploying expensive, taxpayer-funded military machinery and putting American troops in harm’s way, but only for military incursions that serve absolutely no American interest.

Pages: 1 2

  • Jasmine Davis

    Love you as always Ann!

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

    Jaz

    • 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.

  • http://newmediaage.shugartmedia.com/NewMediaWorld/ 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.