 |
| ||
|
||||||||
|
July 16, 2008 The Party of DefeatBy Richard Baehr
David Horowitz has written many books and articles that deal with the topic of American political warfare. Horowitz has often argued that the left is much more resolute, serious, and focused in its efforts, which has enabled it to win political victories over an often dispirited, and less focused conservative opposition. Horowitz's new book Party of Defeat, co-written with Front Page Magazine managing editor Ben Johnson, offers chapter and verse in how this fight between an aggressive anti-war left, and the Bush administration and its allies, played out over the Iraq war. The book has, of course, not been reviewed by the New York Times nor the Washington Post, but surprisingly, has also been ignored by the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal as well. This is unfortunate, since the message this book delivers is an important one in the current run-up to the Presidential election in November. In essence, the Democratic Party, and its allies on the left have chosen to win a political war at home, at the expense of winning wars in which the country was engaged overseas. In fact, the political success of the effort by the "Party of Defeat" was tied to creating a story, repeated constantly by members of Congress, former political figures (e.g Al Gore) and cooperative journalists, that the Iraq war was a mistake, that it was sold" to the country with hyped ("bogus") intelligence, and that the war proved a diversion from the "real war on terror" in Afghanistan). As the initial success in removing Saddam turned into tough fighting with a well-armed Sunni insurgency, and Shiite militias armed and funded by Iran, the left and the Democratic Party called for an admission of defeat and a withdrawal. To add to the negativism of the message about the Administration, major news organizations, especially CBS, the New York Times and the Washington Post, revealed various secret programs implemented by the Bush administration, including tracking the conversations and funding of suspected terrorists overseas, and presented the boorish behavior of a few soldiers at Abu Ghraib as representative of the behavior of our soldiers overseas ( "a pattern of abuse", also seen supposedly at Guantanamo). As recently as this past Sunday, Frank Rich, author of one of the many remainder shelf screeds on the horrors of the Bush administration (very favorably reviewed in the New York Times of course), wrote a particularly hysterical column even for him, predicting that there would be war crimes trials (justified of course) for the President, and others in his administration for acts of torture and murder. One of the fascinating aspects of the Horowitz and Johnson book is the way the authors document the various charges leveled at the Bush Administration by the Democrats and the media and demonstrate how in each case they were either false or greatly exaggerated, often using as evidence the reports of various independent or Congressional committees appointed to examine the charges. Each time one slander was knocked down, the left was back with more. But the news stories that got the attention were the charges, not the acquittals. In large part, the media and political war was so one sided because the Bush Administration was so weak in its response to the assault on its policies, and the leaks coming from the State Department and the intelligence agencies. A war against the war was being fought within the Administration, and the Bush team ignored the misconduct and crimes committed by those on the inside. The real huckster of the last few years was Joseph Wilson, who on the recommendation of his wife, Valerie Plame, was sent to Africa to determine whether the Iraqi government had been shopping for yellowcake and aluminum tubes in Niger. Wilson's oral report to the government upon his return did nothing to quell any suspicions, and if anything, confirmed them. But once the war began, he became a key player in feeding false stories to the New York Times, especially to the ever gullible Bush hater Nicholas Kristof, that Wilson had conclusively determined that the Iraq shopping in Africa story (that the British intelligence services are still defending today) was mythology. Wilson, an obscure retired State Department official, was suddenly the glamour boy, and part of the new glamour couple on the left. When his wife's non-covert job was revealed by Robert Novak, an anti-war critic from the right, it created a several year firestorm. Novak allowed Scooter Libby and Karl Rove to be accused and attacked for a leak of Plame's identity, which Novak knew came from Richard Armitage. Novak is not called the prince of darkness for nothing. One gets the sense reading this book that the administration expected the other side to play fair, or that all good Americans would support the war once we were engaged, and given the high stakes involved. As Victor Davis Hanson has often written, war is ugly and uneven, in the best of circumstances. There is certainly room for debating the wisdom of the war in Iraq, and there have certainly been missteps in the conduct of the war. The authors readily admit this, though they believe the war was justified, and that Saddam's failure to abide by 17 UN resolutions after the Gulf War, his history of development of WMD programs and use of such weapons on his own people and Iran, and his links to and support for terror groups made removing Saddam the risk-averse strategy. The invasion came but 18 months after 9/11 and continued the effort by the Administration to take the offensive overseas, rather than allow terror groups and terror supporting nations (all part of the same global jihad) to take the battle to us, as Al Qaeda had repeatedly done during the Clinton years, with virtually no response by that Administration.. In any case, despite many early missteps, the surge strategy, initiated by the Bush administration, and backed by Senator John McCain, and opposed by virtually all Democrats including Barack Obama, has been skillfully carried forward under the leadership of General David Petraeus, and has substantially changed the course of the war in our favor. Horowitz and Johnson lay out the reluctance of the Democrats and their media allies to admit they were wrong, and that the war is now being won. That of course, is because the left and the Democrats have too much invested in our failure in Iraq, since that failure is directly related to their perception of their own party's recipe for electoral success. The Democrats never accepted the Bush Presidency as legitimate after the virtual tie in the 2000 President contest in Florida, and Gore's thin popular vote plurality. The attacks of 9/11 created a rare bipartisan unity. Democrats really had no choice since the country was so angered and unified behind the President and his response in Afghanistan. But Iraq offered an opening to undermine Bush. More than half of the Senate Democrats and 40% of House Democrats supported the President's Congressional resolution on Iraq in the fall of 2002 (the war had high support in America, when it was launched in March 2003), and even more had backed the occasional few days of bombing runs by President Clinton during his administration (the fiery anti-Saddam rhetoric by Democrats in 1998 is of course all on the record). But the anti-war left was fiercely opposed to the Iraq war (quieter on Afghanistan), and many Democrats in Congress were now on their side and became bitter opponents of the war. As the war dragged on, many more Democrats in Congress came to regret their initial support, and bought into the "I was duped by misleading intelligence" line. And soon it became apparent that the war could be used as a cudgel to undermine the Bush administration and weaken it politically on all fronts. Hence we have the Party that bought into defeat in Iraq as a strategy for victory in the elections. In 2006, unhappiness with the Bush Administration over the response to Hurricane Katrina, Iraq, spending, and corruption, led to major defeats for the GOP in the mid-term elections. This year, we are selecting a commander in chief, not just 435 members of the House and 35 Senators. It remains to be seen whether Americans will elect as their commander in chief, a man who has been so heavily invested in his party's strategy of defeat from the beginning of the Iraq war. Richard Baehr is chief political correspondent of American Thinker.
|
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|
||
Comments
The liberal Democrats have become THE ANTI-AMERICAN party. Against the Constitution, people and history of OUR Country. They fail to recognize that their agenda to defeat our Constitution will make them first to the tribunal. They have no knowledge of how history has treated gullible fools. Their HOPE for CHANGE produces results that were unanticipated; by them.
Fortunately, our country has an adversarial government. Deliberately created to resist a despot. We are come to another trial of that form. This one more serious as it is not martial but economic and political. And the figurehead is distanced from the dictator. George Soros has made many problems for America but the foundations of the country resist him. His puppet will not prevail. The story of America will grow stronger for this, the strongest yet, attempted takeover of the Citidal of Liberty. It will be close. But America will Survive. And become stronger against the next attempt on our destruction. And the story will continue.
Posted by: caststeel | July 16, 2008 03:01 AM
Some comments on the above article (I haven't read the book & have no access to it)
* "Iraq war was a mistake, that it was sold" to the country with hyped ("bogus") intelligence, and that the war proved a diversion from the "real war on terror" in Afghanistan"
THAT IS THE FACT. Unless you want to go into Clinton's territory on legally-that-isn't-what-i-said, US went into Iraq to war without UN approval & looking for WMD that it could not find. During these years, Osama has continued to survive in Afghanistan/Pakistan and that is the hard truth. While you can wallow in any self-belief on this issue, the World (which i am not sure that a lot of American know even exists!) will only laugh at the above statement if presented as facts
*"presented the boorish behavior of a few soldiers at Abu Ghraib as representative of the behavior of our soldiers overseas ("a pattern of abuse", also seen supposedly at Guantanamo)"
WHAT A HYPOCRITIC statement from a country that takes the liberty of lecturing other countries on Human Rights Issues. Donald Rumsfeld authorized the use of torture tactics in Abu Ghraib & Guantanamo. Stop lecturing the World if you want to behave like a bully because you can't have the cake & eat it too. While US has merrily calling up nations that treat people they term as Terrorist, why should they not be called up when they violate the same rules? Why is a terrorist against US treated differently than a terrorist against China, Columbia, Venezuela?
*"predicting that there would be war crimes trials (justified of course) for the President, and others in his administration for acts of torture and murder"
Any war crime trial against US officials isn't just going to happen. Not now, not in the future. However, is it such a huge thing for Bush to come out and say - "hey, we didn't know the ground realities in Iraq about WMD. we were misled by the intelligence we received & by the bluff game Saddam played. We didn't get UN sanctions to declare & conduct war against Iraq. We realize our MISTAKE but we won't leave Iraq alone. We will rebuild the country before we leave"
*"Joseph Wilson, who on the recommendation of his wife, Valerie Plame, was sent to Africa to determine whether the Iraqi government had been shopping for yellowcake and aluminum tubes in Niger."
Two issues here. NOTHING that Joseph Wilson did, justifies the release of the identity of Plame. What was Plame's higher official doing when Plame recommended her husband? There is absolutely no credible evidence that Niger had a MoU with Iraq to sell uranium in late 1990s. Iraq did some fishing around but got nothing. Once again, you can go ahead with your self-belief, not a lot of people buy your line.
* "Novak allowed Scooter Libby and Karl Rove to be accused and attacked for a leak of Plame's identity, which Novak knew came from Richard Armitage"
Libby has gone on record to state that he revealed that Wilson's wife was a CIA officer to Judith Miller.
* "Saddam's failure to abide by 17 UN resolutions after the Gulf War"
Excuse me, but isn't UN supposed to handle this?
* "his history of development of WMD programs and use of such weapons on his own people and Iran"
Once again, remind me - who visited Saddam when he was gassing his people? Yeah, Donald Rumsfeld. Dumping friends after they start thinking on their own / become liability has been a long standing & non-changing rule of the US government
*"The invasion came but 18 months after 9/11 and continued the effort by the Administration to take the offensive overseas, rather than allow terror groups and terror supporting nations (all part of the same global jihad) to take the battle to us, as Al Qaeda had repeatedly done during the Clinton years, with virtually no response by that Administration.."
THIS HAS BEEN THE HALLMARK OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. There has been no link between Al-Qaeda & Iraq before the invasion. The bush administration has cheated his country men by trying to create a non-existent link. There was nothing that led Iraq to 9/11 attacks. And even in 100 years, Saddam will not have the capability of waging war against America in their soil. In the middle east, that is a different story ...
* But Iraq offered an opening to undermine Bush."
Why was Bush even interested in Iraq in the first place. He had a whole job to do in Afghanistan. Please explain why the whole world supported US when they invaded Afghanistan and there wasn't the same kind of response when US invaded Iraq? The simple answer is that the World recognized the legitimacy of war in Afghanistan but not in Iraq
Some other points:
* This is no support to what Obama stance is. If he was so interested in Afghanistan, he should have atleast called the sub-committee for a meeting when he has been the chairperson for the last 3 years
* As i stated earlier, if the goal of US is to establish Democracy, you should be at war against Burma & Zimbabwe and a dozen more African countries as well. Else, you had no business in Iraq.
* I have been told that Americans are at the forefront in forgiving. All Bush had to do was admit his mistake in Iraq, American public (forget the Dems) would have readily forgiven him & seen the brighter side of a Saddam-less World
Posted by: Krishnakumar Santhanam | July 16, 2008 05:33 AM
This election is one of the most important in our history for many reasons. The most important of these is that for the first time our government could be in a situation where primarily only the voices coming from the extreme left could very well dominate the discussion and legislative action regarding the critical issues facing our country's future for years to come. Please Consider: Obama's Left -A Trojan Horse (Donkey) Approaches at zachjonesishome.wordpress.com
Located: http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/obama%e2%80%99s-left-a-trojan-horse-donkey-approaches/
Posted by: ZachJonesIsHome | July 16, 2008 06:32 AM
The election is still about the war in Iraq. The hard core anti-war faction of the Democratic Party wants to lose. Most rank and file Democrats are more ambivalent. They want to win but don't want to lose anymore soldiers and money in a losing cause.
The rules of the Democratic primary handed the nomination to the pockets of hard core anti-war activists in the college towns and capitols of the western states that held caucuses rather than primaries.
As it becomes increasingly clear that Iraq is stabilizing, Obama is negotiating between the party of defeat that gave him the nomination and the moderate Democrats and independents that will comprise the swing voters in this election.
As the primaries showed, the message of defeat was not very popular with that demographic as voters in the late Democratic primaries were turned off by Obama's association with a collection of radicals who blame the United States for the world's problems.
Posted by: Jonathan Cohen | July 16, 2008 07:36 AM
I honestly believe that Reid, Pelosi and the rest have the blood of every soldier who died in Iraq on their hands because they actively fought this war on the side of the enemy, and one day they will have to answer to their Creator for their verbal aiding and abetting of mass-murder of civilians in Iraq by Islamic insurgents, too.
They sold their souls for sleazy political advantage, and that makes them beneath contempt.
Posted by: Mojo | July 16, 2008 08:22 AM
In my humble opinion, if Obama does get in the whole dynamic is going to change, the right will organize and become a cohesive party again, the left will slide into a defensive posture and will soon be on it's butt defending Obama. Gas prices will be the catalyst and the Republican battle cry. The left is 100% in the green drill-nothing-anywhere crowd and will not be able to dodge this bullet. Obama's biggest danger is from his left-wing (especially the more radical) base, who will hold his feet to the fire, even if the terrorists attack us once again on our soil (something I think is bound to happen under a Democrat president). This will get very interesting...
Posted by: Michael H Serafin | July 16, 2008 08:38 AM
In all of the discussions on the Iraq War, one fundamental fact is overlooked by both sides:
Sadam signed an unconditional surrender at the end of his ejection from Kuwait.
Sadam failed to follow through on the terms of that surrender because he thought he had purchased the votes of enough members of the U.N. Security Council through the "Oil for Food Program" to ensure that the terms would not be enforced.
I can understand why the left ignores this fact but I can not understand why Consevatives and supporters of the President fail to hammer away at this point. President Bush 43 simply enforced an agreement made during his father's administration and that was largely ignored by the Clinton Administration(unless Monica was testifying in front of a Grand Jury).
Thus no other action by Congress was necessary.
The fact that Congress passsed what amounts to two declarations of war are redundant pluses.
That Al-Qaeda moved in to fill the vacuum, only to be slaughtered was a huge benefit and not totally unexpected.
Thus the "Gulf War" did not officially end until we returned sovereignty to the Nouri al-Malikai Government.
Posted by: Otis A. Glazebrook, IV | July 16, 2008 08:46 AM
I may be wrong, but as I understand it, any U.N. member, if they can or want, may unilterally enforce a U.N. resoloution. Someone more knowledgable than I would know for sure.
Posted by: dionysis | July 16, 2008 08:52 AM
All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people.
Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction.
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
Adolf Hitler
Posted by: DaveT | July 16, 2008 09:14 AM
Krishnakumar Santhanam
try readin this.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
and the war the US is fighting is not ONLY againt the people that were involved in 9/11 (which saddam was in an indirect way), it is againt TERRORISM and ALL those that have attacked the United States.
people like you that can't seem to understand that one simple fact is either due to your desire to undermine the US or simple stupidity.
Posted by: wargammer2005 | July 16, 2008 09:29 AM
Otis, thanks you for that concise post. It trumps any and all bluster and fooferaw offered up by the lathered Krishnakumar above.
I would add to your list (though it isn't necessary) Hussein's habitual targeting of and firing upon US and British planes, as well as Hussein's attempt to assassinate a former US President (H.W. Bush).
Posted by: 2BrixShy | July 16, 2008 09:38 AM
To: Krishnakumar Santhanam
I'm glade you wrote your comments.
You have displayed either, your stupidity, ignorance (which you evidently think is a virtue) and hatred or your counting on that in others. None of your statements merit commenting on. What a lost cause.
Posted by: Jim | July 16, 2008 09:49 AM
I just finished reading that FABULOUS book. It says (repetedly) we did NOT go to war in Iraq over them (Iraq) being an immediate threat. We went because of Sadam's refusal to abide by the UN resolutions, and particulary Resolution 1441. It also mentions that Sadam could have stopped the war when just before the attack, when Persident Bush gave him and his boys 48 hours to leave the Country (Russia was ready to allow his exile th their country). He was to stop his WMD programs and he didn't. We never said he had WMD's ready to use. We just said he had programs to develop them and the programs must be stopped before they get any further.
Everything else you hear is just smoke and mirrors from the Left trying to defeat their own country (and NONE of these traitors have been prosecuted!).
Fabulous history of the war and what led to it. As far as I know, it is the only truthful (& heavily footnoted) publication about the war to date. That is why the left (New Your Times, Wa Po, etc.) don't want anyone to know about it. It proves their treason (as well as that of many in our Congress, State Dept., and CIA), beyond the shadow of any doubt. I highly recommend EVERYONE in the Country and their children READ THIS BOOK!
Posted by: David J | July 16, 2008 09:49 AM
Otis, Thank you. I have been saying the same thing ever since '03 and also can't understand why the Republicans don't bring this up.
Anytime I have confronted someone with an anti-war view with this fact, they have no way to answer with any credibility.
Posted by: Pedro | July 16, 2008 09:56 AM
To Krishnakumar Santhanam:
Hi Terrorist Apologist,
How are you?
Posted by: Conservative_Forever | July 16, 2008 10:20 AM
I read with interest an earlier post that seems to agree with the losers on the war in Iraq. The author's analysis is dubious at best. Iraq was a danger to the whole region. Yes, we did take the Arab position of an enemy of an enemy is a friend. This is particularily the State Departments real politic position. The Bush administration did not for some reason articulate(an oxymoron for both Georges)all of the reasons to go after Saddam. Bush also failed to make the Centcom Commander provide a plan for governing Iraq after a military victory. This is essential for an successfull military operation, it is not just tanks, planes, bombs and shells. We lost two years with the wrong Generals and the wrong ambassadors. Perhaps that time was needed. No Afghanistan is not the whole war. If we really want to starve this beast, we simply need to drill for our own oil, build nuclear power plants and conserve. We may never reacxh the nirvana of self sufficiency bu if we could add another two or thre million barreals a day to the wolrd oil market and if the other promising areas add even more the price of oil would drop and we would start starving the beast. In order to completely starve it we need to get serious about drugs Singapore style. This is another source of funding.
This alone won't be enough. We must make it clear that any harm to us or ny of our alllies will be met with resounding force. WE must not be afraid to defend a way of life that allows for diversity. I sometimes think the losers among us, many of whom are very noisy about the benefits of diversity really do not believe in diversity. They in fact believe being diverse is having their same opinion.
Lastly, we must encourage Muslims to speak up if in fact all of this terror is antithetical to that relgion. Their silence means either they are scared or in fact that it is not anthetical to their belief.
Posted by: Jeff | July 16, 2008 11:24 AM
"Saddam's failure to abide by 17 UN resolutions after the Gulf War"
Excuse me, but isn't UN supposed to handle this?
Krish - the answer to your question is the UN did not handle it so in the interest of our national security, which trumps the UN by the way, we did handle it. America and President Bush in particular has nothing to apologize for. The President did his job and America is safer for it. Undeniable.
Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2008 11:41 AM
As I understand it, Novak testified right away as to Armitage being the leaker and was then enjoined from discussing his testimony so there is no need to indict Novak, but Fitzgerald.
I hope there is going to be some systemic pushback from the Bushies on these points. One to remember for all keyboard operators: the evidence of Saddams involvement in 911 is extensive and documented. Salman Pak; Ramzi Yousef; Harold Baer. Search these terms, Bushies. Saddam's Iraq was collusive in 911.
Posted by: megapotamus | July 16, 2008 11:49 AM
David Horowitz is one of my philosophical inspirations and intellectual heroes. We both journeyed from clueless Commie sympathizer to Reagan Conservative via critical, deductive thinking based on the clinical facts. It's called growing up.
Bless you caststeel! Dittoes! America is not a government. It's a powerful spiritual idea that dwells in the hearts and minds of those wise enough to be touched by it's ancient cosmic truths. I've encountered grateful immigrants that fled Communist police states (100 million thought criminals liquidated in the 20th century). We have NO idea what we've got here, compared to their experience. Yes...we exist as the antidote to those snarling chihuahua tyrants and despots...imperfect and human as we are. We will survive as a stronger nation and the freedom we preserve and defend will never die. Clueless wishful DNC Liberal mythology notwithstanding.
I've figured out the key to the bi-racial messiah's special magic. The turban he's wearing in Kenya is a Kikuyu shaman's wizard hat. He folds his arms, wiggles his nose, and shapeshifts at will from a priviliged white boy from Honolulu and Harvard...to a street brother 'down with the struggle' from the South Side. He can also peer into the future like 'Karnak the Magnificent'...when the turban stobes red and ring tones 'The Internationale'...he channels the all seeing eye of Sauron Soros from Mt. Doom. He then then slips the magic golden ring of MSM truth spin on his middle finger, and receives subliminal suggestions on what all his future 'policy du jour' decisions will be from a whispered inner voice that remarkably resembles the Rev. Jackson's.
Posted by: Ranger Joe | July 16, 2008 11:58 AM
To Krishnakumar Santhanam:
Do you actually believe that? Or is that just the Democrat company line??
It certainly shows that Democracts certainly don't understand Terrorism, or they are willing to sacrifice America's safety to be the Terrorist Apologists.
Say what you want about President Bush, we have been safe and I have been thankful to have him in office. This man understands Terrorism and is doing all he can to keep us safe. That includes going in to Iraq and finding and killing terrorists.
Two other remaining points. I would have more, but what's the point with your total ignorance. Yes, the U.N. is supposed to handle Saddam's defiance... you would THINK. That is why they are the Useless Nations. We got attacked by terrorists and therefore President Bush went after them where they were. A war against Terrorism, as a whole. And our Allies are doing a great job as well.
And isn't your point about the WMD a little moot since the Yellowcake was found?! You blazing idiots need to take that off of the company line. No, they would not be able to use it effectively yet, but other countries could. They could sell it to Iran, Hezbollah, Al Quaida, etc... who could use it against us.
It is nice to know you can read the Democrat company line. I always wondered if y'all could read. Now, I know, you simply can't use brain for anything more.
I could comment on your other wrong points, but I know it will do no good. You will believe your crap without doing actual research.
Cheers.
Posted by: Lamma | July 16, 2008 12:18 PM
The Republicans are their own worst enemy and they need to get back to the Conservative basics and publicly support their policies instead of letting others define them.
I agree with Otis. The GOP only hurts itself by allowing misinformation to be bleated about with no response or correction. The party needs a marketing push and PR makeover to compete with the slick libs.
Is anyone in the party listening?
Posted by: mandy | July 16, 2008 12:18 PM
Krishnakumar:
Something is causing you to look at the negative image of reality. You should try to figure out what that is, although in my experience I have inevitably found a Marxist paradigm at the bottom of the world view that you outline here.
Posted by: maineman | July 16, 2008 12:21 PM
I am with David J. We don't use the "t" word enough.
Posted by: richard | July 16, 2008 12:32 PM
To Krishnakumar Santhanam:
Sorry, buddy, but after reading the first bit of your screed and seeing that you are willfully ignorant (and of course angry; the left is always angry), I just skipped over the rest. I just couldn't be bothered. Next time, just write "I hate Bush, and America too," and I'll be able to take in your whole message at a glance.
Posted by: Sam | July 16, 2008 12:35 PM
Saddam's support for terrorism....
http://regimeofterror.com and
http://husseinandterror.com
Read away
Posted by: Mark Eichenlaub | July 16, 2008 12:43 PM
There is a old saying never vote democrat during a time of war. That is because they are weak in the knee, coward, pacifists period!!!
Guess what it does not matter at this point if it was right or wrong to go to war we are at war and do the American people want to withdraw in defeat? That is the stupidest thing I have heard. I wish these living in adream liberals would move to Holland and smoke thier piece pipe and stay out of my life. The more these idiots get the more they want.
Posted by: shannon | July 16, 2008 01:28 PM
The Iraq War represents the complete and utter failure of the UN and EU. Had they any honor there would have been no Iraq war. The left cannot tolerate the demonstrable failure of their worldview and their humiliation at being exposed as completely wrong about just about everything. Defeat and losing is the only way they can save their extremely selfish and self absorbed egos.
Posted by: Roy E | July 16, 2008 02:01 PM
To the guy whos name I can't pronounce. KS
Printed out your posting and took it in the bathroom to read and used it accordingly.
Posted by: Bob | July 16, 2008 02:28 PM
Mr. Santhanum,
I need to answer your first point, That the Iraq war was sold based on hyped intelligence.
I remember clearly weighing the issue as the war approached. I was not sure whether I supported or opposed the action we all knew the President was likely to take. I listened carefully to his statements, which included many reasons for removing Sadaam. I met several Iraqis who had fled for their lives from Sadaam. They were all hoping and praying that the USA would help their country.
During this time I found a book by Kenneth Pollack, THE THREATENING STORM: The Case for Invading Iraq. Mr. Pollack was President Clinton's chief policy adviser on Iraq. I turns out that the plans for overthrowing Sadaam were begun back in the Clinton years. Years of thought had been given to this. Sadaam was financially supporting several terrorist groups. He was torturing and killing thousands of his own citizens. He had started two wars. Yes, there was a danger that he would sell chemical weapons to terrorists. No intelligence agency in the world doubted that. But the case for invading Iraq never did stand or fall on the WMD issue. Bush never said it did.
As the invasion began, the country was occupied, and insurgents began their attacks, I watched as the media and the left twisted the narrative. The only thing frequently mentioned was, "Where are the WMDs?" The larger context and the history were ignored. And that is a chief problem with the thinking of the President's enemies.
This War brought a mass murderer and world class criminal to justice. It opened a door in the Middle East that could result in the spread of better government to surrounding nations, to greater stability in the world. The war was costly, but the potential benefit is far greater, in saved lives and better lives for many in the Middle East.
I would think that nearly everyone except a tyrant would support these goals. I can only conclude that the thinking of most of the left has been clouded and skewed by their hatred for Bush. They miss the larger issues entirely.
Posted by: Robert Silver | July 16, 2008 03:51 PM
From the very beginning of the jihadists assault on the nonmuslim world, and us in particular,their announced strategy,publicly declared early and often,was that though they had no chance in military terms,their dedication and and persistence would prevail over decadent westerners who had no stomach for spilling blood. They made it clear to all the world that this would ultimately be a battle of political will. Knowing this full well the Democrats have, virtually from the time Sadaam's statues were toppling in Bagdad, done everything in their power to subvert our will to persist and offered aid and comfort to our avowed enemies. Every time I see one of these traitorous clowns giving a news conference to decry the mounting American casualties, I am filled with seething rage and wish I could be present to ask the obvious questions that never seems to be asked. [Senator or Congressman], do you think that perhaps, just perhaps , a number of these wonderful young people might still be around to return to their loved ones, if you and your putrid ilk had not been offering daily encouragement to the jihadis that , if they could just keep the carnage proceeding until the next American election their victory would be assured? Do you not think that the constant sight of their comrades being shot , vaporized, or rounded up, might have eroded their alleged superior dedication, in the absence of the constant carrots waved before them by you and your cohorts in the party, CNN and the NYT? Are you thankful that the people of America no longer possess enough of an instinct for self-preservation to mount another million man march on Washington, to drag you and your comrades down the Capitol steps and decorate the lampposts of Pennsylvania Ave. with your rotting corpses, for the crime of putting any question of national interest or national security beneath your blatant lust for political power? I spent the first 3/4 of my life my life sharing an equal disdain for both the Dems and the Repubs, but have voted solidly Republican lately, not because I hold them high regard, but because they offer the only plausible means of denying power to the Dems. Their continuing incompetence makes that plausibility appear decidedly slim.
Posted by: djaces | July 16, 2008 04:11 PM
For many months before and right up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Saddam was paying blood money to the families of Palestinians who were blowing themselves up with abandon. Anyone remember the Lame Stream Media's upset over the administration calling them homicide bombings??? These suicidal idiots were taking a lot of innocent Israelis with them. The severity of this problem for Israel can not be understated. Israel was shaken to its core and the need for action was intense. What leverage did Israel have to bring about regime change without going nuclear in Iraq? Only the U.S. had the conventional force to accomplish the removal of the tyrant.
The abrogation of the treaty from the end of Gulf I and 17 resolutions the UN was too pathetic to enforce simply made the case for a just war (Jus ad bellum) and aided in winning a majority vote for support in Congress. Remember WMD was only one in a long list of justifications in the resolution for taking action.
Posted by: CSM | July 16, 2008 04:44 PM
To My Dear Fellow AT Posters,
The best way to respond to drooling lunatics like Krishnakumar Santhanam is to completely ignore them. Even the electrons required to put his rantings in didital format were ill-used. Besides, he won't be back to read your responses because he lacks the courage. He leaves his foetid literary droppings here and skiddadles. Occasionally, a liberal with a brain posts here and offers valuable insights from another perspective. Fair enough. We should respectfully engage them. Krishnakumar Santhanam, on the other hand, is better left ignored and obscure.
Posted by: Oracle | July 16, 2008 04:47 PM
For all who think the Republicans should "push back" on the left's disinformation: keep in mind the concept of "peaking too soon" (Obama already has done this). Republican elite are pretty smart people. Look for the barrage to begin in the first week of September.
Posted by: Ty Knoy | July 16, 2008 04:49 PM
Of course Saddam was behind 9/11. If any maggot on the planet had a motive it was that SOB. It was a classic mob hit. You can never trace the corpse back to the godfather.
Don Corleone has a 'stone in his shoe'. He gives the job to 'Feech' who gives it to 'Fat Tony' who knows a guy who knows the intended victim intimately who will kill his own grandmother for wads of cash. 'The Sopranos' was fictionalized fact.
Thats how really evil bad guys do their dirty work. Stalin, Saddam's role model, had his opponent Kirov killed with a nod to his goons, then had a show trial of the NKVD shooter for murdering a hero of the people.
Saddam made John Gotti look like a choir boy. Of course we dealt with him when he was fighting Iran. There's a scene in 'Spartacus' where Senator Gracchus says, "If a thief has something you want...you deal with him." (Its called 'Realpolitik'.) History will certainly judge 'W' as the right man at the right time!
This is all out of Machiavelli and Sun-Tzu, who wrote the 'How To' manuals on ruthless political power. Reciprocal hate. We read their books too! Its how Patton beat Rommel with armored Ju-jitsu...use the energy of the enemy attack against them. God Bless our amazing military. They are worth every nickel and more!
Posted by: Ranger Joe | July 16, 2008 05:01 PM
To Krishnakumar Santhanam: You are apparantly living in a cave with the only link to the outside being CNN, MSNBC or one of the other alphabet channels. The US and its allies had UN approval. Any UN member could enforce the 17 UN resolutions that Sadam continuously violated. WMDs were found. Apparently, the "news" shows you watch failed to report that the US military removed 550 metric tons (that's 1,100,000 pounds) of "yellowcake" from Sadam's nuclear facilities located 12 miles south of Bagdad. Perhaps you were unaware of Sadam's use of chemical agents to kill thousands of his countrymen. Many of these have also been un-earthed. The "world" will laugh if they are as uninformed as you.
Making people uncomfortable or scaring information out of them are not tourture and are not war crimes. Disfigurement, rape, beheadings - now these are torture and are used by those we are trying to stop. Why don't you cry out against these animals?
Your comments on Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame once again indicate you are uninformed. Concerning uranium - see the first paragraph above.
Your comment on the 17 UN resolutions - once again I refer you to the first paragraph.
Afghanistan and Iraq have been the hallmark of the Bush administration and thankfully so. President Bush had and has the forsight to understand the war against radical Islam must be waged aggressively and those countries providing training, financial support, weapons or safe haven must be dealt with. Thousands of Sadam's official records are being reviewed and there are links to Osama. You are correct when you state Iraq did not have the capability of waging war against America in their soil but Iraq did, as do other enemy states, have the capability of waging a proxy war by supplying terrorists with weapons and funding to attack us on our soil. Hence, President Bush's position to wage aggresive war against terrorists and their supporters.
Basically, you are a prime example of what Richard Baehr discusses in his article.
Posted by: Bill | July 16, 2008 05:07 PM
Kris-anthemum. That's funny - yeah, sure, that's your real name. Whatever.
This is American THINKER.
Your leftist talking points - a.k.a. LIES - won't wash here.
No WMD's? Those 5,000 Kurdish men, women, and children Hussein gassed at Hilabja are still dead the last time I checked.
Abu Ghraib? Forcing people to wear panties on their heads? Why haven't you ever complained about the torture, dismemberment and death that happened at that facility when Saddam was runnin' the joint?
And when you heard about what U.S. soldiers did at Abu Ghraib, why didn't you leap to your feet and say 'THAT does NOT represent America! THAT does NOT represent who our troops really are!'?
Why did you and your ilk just keep pounding at America's reputation for years afterwards, in the nauseating hope that a Democrat could swoop in to the White House and save you from reality, without even THINKING about what you were doing to America's standing in the world?
Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame LIED. She WASN'T covert, and an emissary of Hussein's went to Nigeria to restart a commercial relationship for Niger's yellowcake uranium. British Intelligence AND French Intelligence maintain TO THIS DAY that it happened.
Scooter Libby and Judith Miller? Miller didn't release Plame's identity. Novak did, after hearing it from Richard Armitage at the State Dept.
But because prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wasn't interested in nailing some nobody at State, he put everyone at the White House under oath. When Libby's recollection of events didn't mesh with another reporter's, Libby was charged with perjury. NOT charged with leaking anyone's name, but for misremembering.
To this day NO-ONE has been charged with leaking Valerie Plame's (over-hyped and over-rated) identity. Plame was so covert, she even made it into a Vanity Fair photo shoot with her husband - BEFORE she was 'outed'.
The U.N. WAS supposed to enforce their 17 resolutions against Saddam Hussein, they just never got around to it. Can you say Oil-for-Food?
Al Qaeda bases were found in Iraq after the invasion, along with Abu Nidal (Rome and Vienna terrorist attacks) and Abu Abbas (Achille Lauro), whom we had been looking for since the '80s.
Some other points:
President Bill Clinton, in his 1998 State of the Union speech, said that Saddam Hussein spent the better part of the '90s developing WMD's.
Did President Clinton lie to the American people when he said that?
Did he over-hype intel when he signed the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, recommending regime change?
Once again, this is American THINKER.
We play chess here, stupid - it ain't checkers.
Posted by: Joe Weldon | July 16, 2008 06:11 PM
"Why is a terrorist against US treated differently than a terrorist against China, Columbia, Venezuela?" - Krishnakumar Santhanam
A terrorist against the US is treated differently than a terrorist against the other aformentioned countries because we are a just, law abiding people, sir. What's that, you say? A captured terrorist in this country will recieve shelter (albeit prison), adequate meals (even conforming to one's religious beliefs), and access to our legal system to face his accusors and have a chance to refute the charges to prove his innocence (this already applied to persons captured on US soil, but now apparently extends to persons captured anywhere in the world, thanks to a highly illogical and questionable decision by the SCOTUS). Other ammenities for our temporary criminal guests include access to religious leaders (imams, priests, whatever), time for physical activity and recreation (for well behaved prisoners), and time allowed for religious observance. Suspects believed to be in possession of valuable information have been subjected to sleep deprivation, cold temperatures and loud music (therefore, I must recieve the same "torture" every time I wake up early to shovel my walk while listening to my IPod). Many prisoners in Gitmo have gone on record as saying they have never lived so well. All this while the American people wait patiently for years (decades?) for justice to be served through the legal system.
Terrorists against the other countries named would be killed on sight, if they were lucky. The unlucky ones would probably find out what torture really is (and it ain't 30 seconds underwater) ... before they were killed.
Why are terrorists treated differently in the United States than in other areas of the world? My only answer is because we are the best, most honorable country in the world, sir. And if we lead by example, perhaps others may follow.
Posted by: Jeremy Shaver | July 16, 2008 06:56 PM
The anti-American press and people thought it funny when they joked that whenever a question was asked of Bush his standard answer was "9-11". Now any question of them about a problem will be answered with "Bush did it". There are no bounds to the blame game they will play.
Our soldiers are bound to follow a legal presidential order. Their lack of support by democrats caused them to suffer "support" pains and death (I think it can be proven). Giving support to the enemy in wartime is a crime. Ex-soldiers should bring the leaders of the democrats to trial. These leaders wanted the US to lose a war so they could win an election. This is UNBELIVABLE! We are in EVIL times.
Posted by: BillG | July 16, 2008 09:16 PM
I just want to make a point about the U.N. The U.N. is nothing without the military might of the U.S. If the U.N. had the willingnes and desire to back up their resolutions, to whom do you think they would turn to enforce them? Without the U.S. the U.N. is toothless. We are the teeth.
Posted by: Neil F | July 16, 2008 11:05 PM
Here is my prediction:
The left will not acknowledge the wisdom behind Bush's offensive against Islamic terror until a Democrat becomes president. They will, with the help of a compliant Media, attribute all of the success in Iraq to The "brilliance"
of the leftist president. Remember Reagan's tax cut and and its effect on the
economy all through Clinton's presidency? Who did the media give the credit to?
Reagan with incredible insight once said:
"There is no limit to what a man can accomplish if he does'nt care who gets the credit."
Posted by: Ed in Beaverton | July 17, 2008 01:59 AM
FYI Gang...there's a great cartoon on Investor's Business Daily's site, by their Pulitzer prize guy Ramirez, showing BHO in Berlin saying..."Ich bin ein beginner..." I thought of one myself. He's in Berlin saying..."Mr. Gorbachev, feel free to rebuild this wall!" Just sayin'!
Posted by: Ranger Joe | July 17, 2008 09:16 PM
How can anyone argue against Bush and this war really? There has not been another terrorist attack here - that in itself is a huge reaffirmation of the Bush administrations decisions and how he has run the country.
We are safer because of it and we have not had an attack in almost 7 years.
Posted by: Jennifer | July 17, 2008 11:58 PM
David always writes terrific stuff. While I cannot add to the comments about this book because I haven't read it, I can add definitively to the discussion regarding the justification for the Iraq war.
First of all, Otis makes the best, most basic case. Thank you. I do not believe I have ever seen anyone make that case before. But Clinton and the UN made a mockery of the entire thing by allowing Saddam to thumb his nose at us for 10 years. One would almost expect to be laughed at for suggesting something so foolish as to actually expect Saddam to live up to his commitments. What is the matter with Republicans?
Anyway, I got sucked into the debate and in 2005 wrote an exhaustively documented article about Saddam's WMD and his complicity in 9-11. You can read it here:
http://truthandcons.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-lied-people-died.html
Saddam had bio and chem., was definitely working on nukes and may have had a few tucked away somewhere. Romanian defector Ion Pacepa claims all Soviet client states have them and also have a ready plan for hiding them in the event of circumstances like Iraq. Our forces have found 500 tons of yellowcake in Iraq. Why is this not news? Maybe Wilson figures it doesn't count. "Oh, that was a different 500 tons..."
Of the approximately 350 weapons depots in Iraq, we searched 10 or less. David Kay and Charles Duelfer never even left the Green Zone but relied on testimony of Iraqis they knew to have worked in WMD development. These folks had to go home every night. Do you think they would dare tell us anything? Many were murdered anyway.
Saddam considered Osama Bin Laden an asset as far back as 1992, according to intelligence documents found in Iraq. Al Qaeda's top 9-11 planner, Khalid Shiek Mohammed, was a non-muslim Baluchi terrorist, who knew and worked with Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing. Some claim he is Yousef's uncle. Baluchs were used extensively by Saddam in his war with Iran.
These are facts. They are so simple and straightforward I want to scratch my eyes out when I hear idiots like Krishnakumar Santhanam. He is probably one of the many $5.00/hour guys the MoveOn folks hire to surf the web and plant lunatic charges on conservative websites.
I believe that somewhere back in the 1970s or 1980s the Democrat Party took a hard look at our form of government and decided we were on the losing side of history. It was at that point they decided to become the Treason Party. Either that or so many traitors had managed to infiltrate themselves into the Party that by the 1980s, it truly had become a party ruled by our enemies.
Either way, their behavior is nothing new, only more brazen. They are willfully and deliberately assisting our enemies in the hope that there will be a place for them in the system that follows our defeat.
Posted by: Jim Simpson | July 22, 2008 11:02 PM
I have read this book and it's a real eye opener about the lies that the Democrats continue to tell. But when have the Democrats ever let the truth get in the way of their ambitions? The book should be titled. The Party of defeat and lies. Just a comment on Krishnakumar Santhanam letter. You haven't read the book or intend to, thanks for all your mindless comments on the book you didn't read. Typicall Bush hating Democrat.
Posted by: Kevin Barry | August 2, 2008 12:28 PM
I agree with ALL that that patriot, Krishnakumar Santhanam, wrote in his July 16th post.
Everything, that is, but the 1st and last sentence. And, of course, all the middle sentences.
But Krishnakumar Santhanam did spell his name right-which, I believe, is quite an achievement in itself.
Posted by: Bryan Taplits | August 30, 2008 07:26 AM