Since the latest terror group attack on Isreal, two prominent Democrats -- Hillary Clinton (the "moderate" in liberal's clothing) and that bastion of extremism, Russ Feingold, both declared that Isreal has a right to defend itself. I wholeheartedly agree. But that isn't the point of this commentary.
Gee, I thought we had the right to protect ourselves, too. Sen. Feingold -- whom I ashamed to admit comes from my state -- has narrowly defined what this should mean in his opinion.
He wants us to get out of Iraq now so we can't protect our freedom on foreign land against the same people who are instigating the attacks on Isreal.
He shamelessly drummed up the claim of "illegal" wiretapping of "domestic" phone calls as a violation of our constitutional rights. As we all know, it wasn't illegal, the Senate Intelligence Committee was aware of it and it was incoming calls from foreigners suspected of terrorist activity. I think this qualifies are protecting ourselves.
Then the New "El Quaida" Times broke the bank records story crippling an effective anti-terrorist tool in the name of "right to know". I think we need to protect ourselves from the NY Times.
The major two points of this commentary is that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 despite the efforts by the anti-war crowd who want to make this sound like we are fighting the good people of Iraq.
The second point is that we have a right to protect ourselves in whatever way we can that is within reason.
Isreal is using carte blanche force against those who wish to annihilate them. Would that we would be so able. Imagine if we were to do what we should've long ago -- go in, take out and send a message, like Isreal is doing, that this cannot and will not be tolerated. 
But apparently the likes of Feingold think this only applies if it meets their distorted view. Which means "Safety of the country be damned; we're out to get that ------- Bush any way we can even if it means aiding and abetting the terrorists".