How many times have we heard that "we shouldn't be in Iraq but
rather our efforts should be concentrated in Afghanistan on the people who
attacked us on 911?" The war in Iraq is not about the people who attacked us on
9-11 anymore than the greater War on Terror is. This war is a war against a
primitive and barbaric ideology whose followers want to take control of Iraq,
and if successful there, will then be encouraged to strive for control of the
entire free world piece by piece. Saddam didn't have to be involved in 9-11 to
for us to justify his removal. It was his own doing by the choices he made over
the previous 12 years.
The Islamic takeover is already happening in Europe because
Europeans have refused to stand up for their culture and their countries which
are being overrun by Islam. Now they're beginning to realize their mistake in
some European countries but it may be too late for them to fix the problem now.
Their liberal laws protect the invaders just as political correctness is
protecting the invaders of America.
This war in Iraq is a war against Islamofascist aggression on
the west. It is a culture war that we must fight not only because nobody else
will, but also because America is the heart and strength of freedom in the
western world. It is the ideology of Islamofascism that we are fighting in Iraq.
The same ideology that felled the twin towers in New York.
No one in the Bush administration ever made the claim that Iraq
was involved in the 9-11 attacks. But even now, 4 1/2 years after the invasion
and 5 years after the case against Saddam Hussein was made, Democrats still use
that false premise for saying "Bush lied, Iraq was not involved in the attacks
on 9-11." No one ever suggested that it was except for the Democrat shills.
We didn't start this war in Iraq anymore than we started the
war on terror. Saddam started this war when he invaded Kuwait 17 years ago, then
failed to abide by the ceasefire agreement and ignored 17 U.N. resolutions to
disarm. After 9-11 we could no longer gamble with the security of our nation and
ignore an Islamic dictator with weapons of mass destruction, who was giving aid
and support to terrorists, and had declared us his enemy. Saddam was warned 17
times to abide by the ceasefire agreement and each time he refused. The
ceasefire finally had to be cancelled and Saddam and his sons had to be removed
from the gene pool. There was simply no other choice.
Over the past 25 years, Americans have been attacked by
Islamofascists a dozen times culminating in the attacks on 9-11. How can
Democrats pretend that we don't have the right to defend ourselves and our
country? How can they condemn our president for removing a threat which would
have most likely been involved in the next terrorist attack on America? The
president did what he had to do to fulfill his primary obligation to the office,
that of protecting America.
In January, 2007, General Petraeus and his plan for the Surge
was unanimously approved by the Senate. He was required to report on his
progress to Congress in September. This week he delivered that report as
requested but Democrats weren't interested in anything he had to say. When the
question and answer period began after his report, Democrats had no real
questions, only statements and speeches disputing the very report they
themselves requested even before the report was delivered. Their minds were
already made up so why even waste time with the report?
In my "Last Word" column last week I stated the following:
"Early reports show positive results of the Surge, and Gen.
Petraeus will be reporting on those results to Congress this week. It is not the
report Democrats were hoping for, so to save face, over the past week they have
been trying to discredit the report by changing the subject. They now say
military progress doesn't really matter. It’s all about political progress.
Prior to the Surge, all they could talk about was the lack of
military progress with little mention of political progress. During the Surge
they kept insisting the operation was a failure. They are now about to be proven
wrong and they know it. But they have their minds already made up and no matter
what Petraeus reports, the war is still a failure in their book, and if they
can‘t portray the Surge as a failure, then it‘s the Iraqi government that is a
failure. And of course, it’s all George W. Bush’s fault."
And that is just what we saw during the Petraeus hearings this
week with one exception; one disgraceful tactic that I never thought the
Democrats would sink so low as to use. With all of their flagrant disrespect for
the Commanding General at the center of the war on terror, they called him a
liar and did their best to impugn his character and integrity with the whole
world watching. This may be the best thing that could have happened because it
showed the country and the world just who these Democrats are and what they
stand for. It was clear to anyone with eye and ears what was going on.
In a joint venture between the Democrat Party, MoveOn.org, and
the New York times, the Times, on Monday morning before the hearings, posted a
full page ad calling General Petraeus a traitor and referring to him as "Gen.
Betray Us." The ad went on to accuse the general of being a shill for Bush and
"cooking the books" to present a false report on Iraq. It was obvious proof that
Democrats already had their minds made up and weren't going to listen to
anything the general had to say. Note that not one Democrat presidential candidate has denounced the ad. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Even before the hearings began, Nancy Pelosi said on camera:
"The stay-the-course strategy by Gen. Petraeus and the president to leave
all troops in Iraq has been rejected by the American people." "Stay the
course" is just one of a number of lies the Dems have been telling to the
American people. The Surge was a change in course but Democrats refuse to accept
Pelosi and other Democrats have been calling the Petraeus
report the "Bush report" and reject the General's opening statement where he
stated that the report he was about to deliver was written by him alone and was
never submitted to, or modified by the White House or the Pentagon. "At the
outset I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed
my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony
myself. It has not been cleared by nor shared with anyone in the Pentagon, the
White House or the Congress until it was just handed out." But according to
Pelosi and her ilk, this is the "Bush Report?"
The Petraeus plan has not been rejected by the American people
and Democrat leaders do not speak for us. They are speaking only for the
radical, antiwar left which has the Dem leaders in their pockets.
Harry Reid accused the White House of having "cherry picked"
the data in the report to prop up their position on the war. "I have every
belief that this good man, General Petraeus, will give us what he feels is the
right thing to do in the report that is now not his report. It's President
Bush's report," said Reid. Was Reid calling Gen. Petraeus a liar, or was it
just that his statement was made before the general stated that the report was
The Politico reports on one Democratic senator, who spoke on
the condition on anonymity: "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on
national TV. The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for
us." And that they did, but it didn't end there.
House Minority Leader John Boehner struck back with:
"Defaming and impugning the integrity of a commanding, four-star general as
he returns from the front lines of war is reprehensible, and Democratic leaders
should put a stop to it at once. These comments do a disservice to the tens of
thousands of American military families whose loved ones are under his command
and serve no constructive purpose whatsoever in moving our troops closer to
victory in Iraq."
On the morning of the hearings, General Petraeus' microphone
was disabled for 10 minutes while the "pinkos" from Code Pink protested in the
back of the hearing chambers until they were thrown out under threat of arrest
by committee chairman Ike Skelton. Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker
must have known at that point that they were in enemy territory and were no
doubt anxious to get back to Iraq. Nonetheless, they each skillfully and
deliberately delivered their reports.
When it was Rep. Tom Lantos' (D-Ca) turn to rant, he went on
for more than 5 minutes on a screed against the credibility of Petraeus and the
report concluding with "We cannot take any of this administration’s
assertions about Iraq at face value anymore. The fact remains, gentlemen, that
the administration has sent you here today to convince the members of these two
committees and the Congress that victory is at hand. With all due respect to
you, I must say: I don’t buy it." Lantos was calling Petraeus a liar on
national TV. Apparently he wasn't willing to let the antiwar left groups have
all the glory. He is wrong in saying that the administration had sent them
there, when in fact it was Congress who had demanded the report. And to
top it off, Gen. Petraeus didn't say anything about victory being close at
hand. Lantos' comments were written long before he ever saw the report.
Not to be outdone by Lantos, Hillary Clinton in essence called
Gen. Petraeus a liar when she remarked: "I think the reports that you
provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief." I
wonder who wrote that line for her. It sounds like it came straight from James
Carville, the former Clinton advisor. Earlier, Clinton had said: "I was
against the Surge when it was first proposed." Really? She voted for it.
It's funny how what Clinton says publicly, and what she does in the Senate are
usually two different things.
Joe Biden had this gem to offer: "President Bush’s war
strategy is failing and the top military commander in Iraq is ‘dead flat wrong’
for warning against major changes... The fact of the matter is that American
lives remain in jeopardy and... if every single jihadi in the world was killed
tomorrow, we’d still have a major, major war on our hands [in Iraq]."
"Major changes" of course, makes the false assumption that the Surge was not a
major change in strategy. If all the jihadi were killed, then who would we be
fighting? Biden later stated: "There is a big disconnect between the truth
of the matter and the reality. I mean, the truth of the matter is that... the
administration’s policy and the surge are a failure." Is this Biden's
assessment based on his vast knowledge of the reality on the ground in Iraq,
which must be far superior to that of General Petraeus? No, it's just the
Democrat talking points repeated over and over again until people begin to
believe it, just as Karl Marx instructed in his teachings on Marxism.
"We should not be fooled into this tactical success
debate... There is no military solution," said John Kerry. A somewhat mild
statement in itself, but does say two things. One, if we can't win the debate on
tactical success, we should avoid it altogether. And two, that Kerry has no clue
how to win this war. It's back to "there has to be a political solution which
Harry Reid had this to offer: "Clearly, continuing to
pursue the President’s flawed escalation policy until at least July 2008 is not
in the national interest of the United States." I would like to know what
Reid considers would be in the national interest of the United States. Does he
really believe that defeat, surrender, and an Islamofascist Iraq would be in our
And that is just a sample of the abuse Gen. Petraeus was
subjected to during these hearings. In spite of it all, the general remained
calm and in control. With each false accusation by the Democrats, the general
laid out the truth for all to hear in a professional way. The Democrat lies all
fell by the wayside as Petraeus shined the light of reality upon them in the
report that Congress requested but didn't want to hear.
Just as Democrats have been putting words in Bush's mouth that
he didn't say, they are doing the same thing now with Gen. Petraeus, saying the
rosy picture he presented to Congress is simply not true. But the truth is, the
good general didn't present a rosy picture. He reported on the progress, and the
deficiencies currently existing on the ground in Iraq, exactly as requested by
Had he left out the parts on success, the Dems would have
embraced him with open arms. But that is not what he was there for. He was there
as the expert, to inform the Congress of the progress being made in Iraq.
Apparently, the liberals in Congress feel that MoveOn.org and the Daily KOS are
better informed on the progress in Iraq than General Petraeus is.
Not only did Congressional Democrats not want to hear it, but
more importantly, they didn't want the American people to hear it as it
conflicted with the picture of failure they have been trying to promote. Now
they claim the rosy picture Petraeus presented was a lie as though they didn't
hear a word he said. They probably didn't. They already had their speeches in
font of them just waiting for their turn in front of the camera to dispute
things Petraeus didn't say while ignoring things he did say. Obviously,
Democrats didn't expect to see any military progress when they scheduled this
report several months ago.
The agenda of today's Democrat leaders is clear. Lie, cheat,
and take illegal campaign contributions, but most of all, smear their opponents
and spread falsehoods to the public through their media shills, while offering
nothing but socialism at the cost of the taxpayers and American values. On Iraq,
the words "success" and "victory" have never been in their vocabulary. The only
thing they have promoted is failure and surrender. Not once were these words
used by Democrats during the hearings. Not once did any one of them ask how they
could help to bring about success in Iraq.
Our Islamic enemies need not create their own propaganda; the Democrats are
doing it for them. We see the Democrat rhetoric in every tape released by al
Qaeda, and daily at al Jazeera. When will Americans wake up to the realization
that these people are not promoting American values but rather the values of a
weak 3rd world communist country incapable of defending itself? The security of
America can never be trusted to this group who agree more with Osama bin Laden
than they do with our founding fathers.