Dissent is unpatriotic?

Several things troubled me about the article in question. First and foremost are the baseless accusations that us liberals were “miraculously not affected by the awesome events of September 11…” Now, I can’t speak for the rest of the “leftists,” but since my column was quoted, I think perhaps I have the right to defend myself. So, a little background is in order. At least one of the columnists who writes for this section spent exactly 9 years, 9 months, and 12 days in active service for his country. In fact, this particular columnist served during Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Deny Flight, Operation Provide Promise etc. Real events, wouldn’t you say? Saw them all with his own two eyes. Even saw crashed airplanes in person, and saw dead pilots, too. Heck, he even had the unenviable task of conducting an investigation on a certain fatal aircraft accident in the United Kingdom. I’d say those events qualify as “experiencing” reality. And even since this particular “leftist” ended his military duty that took him to three continents and numerous countries, he still has an interest in the American military. See, he still has dozens of friends in the active military (including several that worked at the Pentagon on 9/11). He even keeps in touch with several of them who are likely candidates to deploy to the Gulf region when the war begins. Many of his friends wonder whether or not they will be needlessly called upon when Bush authorizes his illegal attack on Iraq–called upon to defend America’s quest to make the Middle East its personal Chevron station. But somehow, because folks who don’t want war and don’t agree with our policymakers’ decision to go to war, objectors are accused of not supporting American troops. Of course, nothing could be more preposterous. Why would any American want innocent young men and women to die needlessly? What dissenters object to are the circumstances that place American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in harm’s way, and to those who irresponsibly make the decisions to do so.

Another interesting comment in the article in question was: “what is best is an ‘eye for an eye’ for those Americans affected by 9/11. Well, if this the case why have we been attacking Afghanistan, and why will we soon be bombing Iraq? Since 19 of the 22 hijackers on September 11th were Saudi Arabian nationals, wouldn’t it stand to reason THAT’S the country we should attack? Or does an “eye for an eye” basically mean as long as we bomb the crap out of some Arabs and/or Muslims, that is retribution enough for those American’s who have been affected? While I agree certainly agree that terrorists who committed these and all other barbaric acts of violence should be condemned, I don’t believe attacking a nation without substantial evidence of anything really, quite equates to “an eye of an eye.” It’s more like war mongering.

I think however, my favorite myopic comment from this article is this one: “close the historical websites, the books of statistics, and take a trip to see some real Americans.” Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t we study the history of the world at least in part to learn from our past mistakes and apply that knowledge to current and future circumstances? If past history didn’t matter, why should we study the Crusades or the Civil War or the Holocaust? I’d say that an event such as America’s first unprovoked attack of an autonomous nation qualifies as an event that will go into history books some day, wouldn’t you? I can only speak personally, but I don’t consider myself better than or smarter than anyone. I have personal opinions of the world’s political climate that are formed on the information I have gathered. If you don’t like my opinion, don’t read my column.