While waiting to catch my flight out of Washington DC on Thursday, a guy across from me got his laptop out and I noticed that he had a John Kerry sticker on it. Sometimes I just can't help myself, so I asked him when he was going to take the sticker off.
"I don't know, I guess in four years.", he replied.
I asked who he thought they might nominate in '08. He wasn't sure. We talked for a little while and he asked the inevitable question. He asked if I was in the military. Of course, I said yes. This lead to a conversation about what we are doing in Iraq, etc. Naturally, he prefaced his comments with, thanks for your service and I really respect what you are doing for our country. I do what I always do when I'm not sure the person saying that to me really means it, but feels compelled to say it anyway, which is "thanks, but remember its an all volunteer force. I do this because it is what I want to do. I really enjoy my job, there's no need to thank me."
He brought up the usual "we shouldn't have invaded Iraq" and of course I asked why not. First volley was "there were no WMD's" and "they weren't really a direct threat to us" and my favorite "it was payback for trying to kill W's dad".
My return volley to that is always the same. The director of the CIA told the President that they had the WMD's and they would share them with terrorists that would use them against the U.S., I believe his phrase was "a slam dunk".
With his initial argument in a shambles he comes back with the new "progressive think" excuse, "there are other countries that DO have WMD's that pose a much greater threat than Iraq ever did, why aren't we invading them?"
I pointed out that we've been down that road with North Korea and Iran, and it didn't turn out so well. Using China to beat down North Korea seems like a much better plan than sending in the troops. A can give you billions of reasons and they all have Chinese passports.
Iran? With a strong and stable Muslim Democracies on either side (Afghanistan and Iraq) Iran with implode from within and we won't have to do a thing. As far as the Nukes go, the EU seems to have a handle on that and let's give them a chance to fail before we jump into that swamp again.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't Iraq, Iran and North Korea the "Axis of Evil" that President Bush identified just a few short years ago that had all the appeaser left-wing liberals awash with angst just because he publicly called them what they really are? And isn't the Clinton administration, with an assist by Carter, primarily responsible for Iran and North Korea even possessing Nuclear Programs? Now suddenly, the left sees clearly the danger posed by these countries? Hi, welcome to the party. The rest of us saw this about 20 years ago.
Obviously stumped for a coherent answer he reverts to the Michael Moore school of world diplomacy,"What about Saudi Arabia? Why not invade them? Most of the terrorists, including Osama Bin Laden, are Saudis."
Sure, we all know that the House of Saud is corrupt and morally bankrupt, but they are also at least trying to participate in the world stage. They are not killing their own people and trying to take over the entire middle east. Let's not forget that they are sitting on about 2/3's of the world's known oil reserves as well.
His answer, again from the Michael Moore school, "so it all comes down to Bush's oil buddies and that's how we decide who to invade and who not to invade".
Look I tell him it is all very simple. We took a look at the middle east and said to ourselves who is the biggest threat to peace and security in the region. Answer: Iraq. Sure Iran is scary and on the verge of developing nukes, Syria is a terrorist-state wanna-be, and Saudi Arabia is bursting at the seams with Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists and frightened and corrupt Sheiks that give them money, but Iraq is a huge military force run by a megalomaniac nut case that truly hates us. Who is the largest military force in the middle east? Again: Iraq. Who has been identified by the CIA, MI-6, and Masaad as marketing in WMD's and terrorism? Again: Iraq. Who has been condemned by the UN in 16 different resolutions? You guessed it: Iraq. So basically, our strategy is that if we go in and beat up the biggest bully on the playground, we aren't going to have to fight everyone else. So who do we go after? Duh, Iraq.
Maybe that isn't "nuanced" enough for the left. Pretty simple to me.
So now he says, "well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on Iraq". I tell him no problem, and that I don't take it personally and that is what is so great about this country. We can disagree on fundamental things like this and no one gets hauled off to jail or taken out to the parking lot to get shot. He nods and the conversation just peters out as another Kerry supporter strikes up a conversation with him about how the "grass roots efforts failed", blah, blah, blah...
When I get up to go catch my flight he again thanks me for my service and it really struck me how dishonest and condescending that really is. THEY JUST DON'T GET IT.
I believe in what I'm doing. I believe that the President made the right choices. I think we should have invaded Iraq. I am not a war-mongering uneducated mindless lap dog to the President/Military leadership. If I didn't believe in what we are doing I could resign my commission and join the peace corps or something.
When the left says they respect our troops or thank us for our service they don't mean what the folks in the Red States mean. They mean thank you like the thank you they give when the valet brings their car around or when the waiter clears the table. It is a show of politeness that they do not really mean. How can they thank me for carrying out policies that I believe in that they don't? The hypocrisy and duplicity are absolutely stunning.
Does the left think that the members of the military are clueless rubes that just won't notice? You simply cannot separate what we do from who we are. It just doesn't work that way. I'm not sure if they are so confused by their own rhetoric that they think they really can support the warfighters without supporting the war or they are just so cynical smug and condescending that they think no one will notice their lie?
Frankly, I would prefer that they were honest with themselves and with me and just go back to calling us names and spitting on us. Then, at least they stood behind what they believed in.
