More Liberal Hypocrisy

by Christopher G. Adamo

It is a sad reality of politics that, as often as fraud and distortions are spread by one side, they need to be refuted by the other. Admittedly, as this relates to the whining and posturing of liberal Democrats ever since the 2000 elections, the result is becoming somewhat monotonous and predictable. However, since the lies continue, so must the rebuttals.

In what appears to be somewhat of a repeat of his carrier landing several months ago, President Bush has once again inspired members of the military by unexpectedly flying into Baghdad last Thursday to serve Thanksgiving dinner to the troops who are deployed there. On the heels of President Bush's visit, American troops faced a barrage of enemy fire, intended to demoralize and ultimately defeat them in their effort to rid that country of its terrorist element. However, these incoming projectiles were not launched from any secret outpost manned by bands of malignant Islamists, but rather from Senators Hillary Clinton (D. NY) and Jack Reed (D. RI), who also visited the region on a “fact finding” trip over the Thanksgiving weekend.

According to Senator Clinton, President Bush conducted the War on Terror, not from any consideration for the best interests of the country, but according to a timetable dictated by political concerns. That is quite the accusation, coming as it does from the wife of a President known for sudden military strikes, amazingly timed to coincide with key milestones of the Monica Lewinsky investigation.

It is also telling that Senator Clinton and President Bush's other critics can, with straight faces, deride him on the one hand for deploying too small of a force, while simultaneously decrying the “excessive cost” of the War.

In response to last week's events, Democrats and the media caterwaul about how the President is ostensibly using the plight of those troops for his own political gain. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton essentially escapes any similar criticisms. Instead, the media seeks to portray her visit as being completely honorable and sincere. Of course Hillary predictably offers some token drivel “in support of the troops,” which has become the standard prerequisite for liberals who seek to undermine the War on Terror. Without pause, she then proceeds to demean their efforts and sacrifices as acts of complete futility.

In truth, very little evidence exists suggesting that New York's junior Senator ever possessed a shred of honor or sincerity. Furthermore, the rather lopsided response to both events from media and Democrat mouthpieces ought to be considered against the backdrop of some other significant happenings of the past decade.

Allegations that President Bush is willing to use troops as political “props” tend to ring hollow when weighed against the blatant exploitation of military personnel by the Clinton Administration. Early in his presidency, Bill Clinton pressed the White House Honor Guard, made up of the highest caliber of U.S. Marines, into service as waiters and busboys during official gatherings. Clearly, Clinton thought nothing of demeaning America's finest military men in this manner. Nor did he hesitate to cheapen the fifty-year commemoration of the Normandy invasion by turning it into an occasion for staged photo-ops on Omaha Beach and at a military cemetery in Italy.

In an amazing political “shell game” of recent years, liberals who at one time universally disdained the concept of “patriotism” as being the domain of gun-toting extremists, now in the wake of 9-11, seek to claim for themselves the title of patriot. So adamant are they in their assertions of “liberal patriotism” that any mere questioning of the purity of their patriotic motives instantly results in a response bordering on hysteria. Unfortunately, far too many conservatives have since avoided suggesting that liberal motives might, in any way, be unpatriotic. Of course, those same liberals are free to continually assign every despicable purpose, no matter how “unpatriotic” to actions of the President and his supporters.

During the Vietnam War, actress/activist Jane Fonda traveled to Hanoi to be photographed, cavorting with the North Vietnamese soldiers and posing on one of their anti-aircraft guns. Was it also wrong to question the “patriotism” of her actions, or the fact that she willingly gave aid, comfort, and encouragement to the enemies of the United States? When Hillary Clinton travels to a war zone, and makes statements in plain sight of America's enemies to the effect that persistence on their part may well gain them an eventual victory, can her actions be called anything else but unpatriotic?

Growing up during the turbulent decades of the ‘60's and ‘70's, Christopher  Adamo saw, to his dismay, the nation's moral foundations being destroyed  before his very eyes. But even then he was a staunch Conservative at heart,  and rejected outright the tenets of America's counterculture revolution.

 After a hitch in the Air Force, where he specialized in airborne  electro- optical systems, he pursued a career in the field of aerospace,  working for major defense contractors in California, Florida, and Colorado. But his career plans abruptly changed during the industry-wide downsizing that followed the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

Presently he is working in the field of industrial instrumentation in the state of Wyoming. Concurrently, he has become involved in that state's political process, attending state GOP conventions as a delegate, and serving as a member of the Wyoming Republican Central Committee. He has also aided in the candidacies of local legislators and state senators, as well as a U.S. Senator and Congresswoman.

From 1993 to 1996, he edited and wrote for “The Wyoming Christian”, the state newsletter for Christian Coalition of Wyoming. During that period, he developed an acute awareness of the harm being done to Conservatism by liberal activists within the Republican Party as well as the Democrats. This remains a favorite theme of his articles, which now appear as a regular feature on GOPUSA.