I posted about David Rozelle, an old high school friend, before. When times seem tough or the stress is starting to get the best of me, I refer back to David’s experiences and suddenly my issues seems like nothing in comparison.

God bless our heroes.

Now that the Obama administration is playing kabuki theater with Iran, it seems like the appropriate time to revive a post I made back on January 13, 2006 questioning the credibility of Democrats on dealing with a nuclear ambitious, Islamic tyrant playing games with the United Nations. Take note of the very last line of the post….

Again we have a nuclear ambitious, Islamic tyrant playing games with the United Nations. And the Democrats are acting the same way they did towards Iraq prior to the war.

Senator John Kerry (D-MA)

“Iran has made a dangerous and silly decision of confronting not just the U.S. government but the entire international community.”

Tom Lantos (D-CA)

“Iran is hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons”

“European governments should make clear to Iran that there can’t be business as usual as long as Ahmadinejad, or others who espouse his radical views, hold high office … the U.S. needs to press for stiff multilateral sanctions aimed at stopping Iran’s nuclear program … there still are measures the U.S. can take alone to increase pressure on Tehran…”

“Iran has reportedly been working to develop [WMDs]. A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our allies… We must show determined leadership to … prevent the development of nuclear weapons in places like Iran.”

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

So we’re justified in asking whether they’re serious today. Afterall, it is reasonable to assume that should the situation with Iran escalate, through the lack of cooperation of Iran itself (like it did with Iraq), Democrats will march hand-in-hand with the anti-war protestors again trying to score cheap political points against Bush… of course, not until after voting to authorize military action, to be sure.

But this is why all this political gamesmanship on Iraq creates a serious problem for our country. The Democrats have now delivered an ambigious message to the world. First, we’ll talk tough and alert the world to the dangers of Iran, then we’ll march around the world calling our President a “liar“, “thug“, “criminal“, “terrorist” and more claiming he made the whole thing up to justify the war.

So the first half of the game with Iran is playing out the same way it did with Iraq. Why should we expect a second half to be any different?

Democrats can’t expect to be taken serious on the subject anymore. And that puts America in a dangerous position if they ever regain power.

It wasn’t by choice. I’m sure the Community Organizer in Chief has been doing his best to keep Biden in the White House cellar, lest he get out in public and do what he does best…

…like this.

Joe Biden remembered to thank Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero for all the help he gave us in Iraq, except that the only thing Zapatero gave us in Iraq was the finger.

The funny thing about this is that Biden was on the ticket allegedly as the foreign policy expert. But he doesn’t even know who’s supporting us and who’s not in Iraq.

You know who else thanked Zapatero for his Iraq withdrawal? The terrorists.

So either “the foreign policy expert” was completely ignorant of Zapatero’s position or he truly thinks like Moqtada al-Sadr.

Neither choice is very comforting.

Barack Obama is gearing up for his trip to Iraq in an effort to provide cover for his shifting position on the current state of Iraq. Over the weekend, his campaign purged the campaign website of all the articles, quotes and reminders of Obama calling the surge a failure.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a “problem” that had barely reduced violence.

“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an “improved security situation” paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.

Once again, a Democrat candidate thinks the American public is simply too stupid to remember what this guy’s entire campaign has been about since the beginning. And once again, the public will see right through this latest whitewash.

So the Democrats distributed a perfectly timed, campaign-season indictment of the Bush adminstration’s action in Iraq on the heels of an anti-war candidate clinching the party’s nomination. And their cohorts in the media picked up with the “Bush lied” meme and ran with it, full force.

ABCNews:

Bush ‘falsely led US to Iraq war’, says report

CBSNews:

Report: Bush Misled U.S. On Iraq Intel

USAToday:

“President Bush and his top officials deliberately misrepresented secret intelligence to make the case to invade Iraq, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee.”

CNN:

Senate report slams Bush over prewar intelligence

And many, many more…

Sounds mighty damning… if only any of it were true. Unfortunately for Democrats in Washington and in the media, the whole story is readily available to the average person. And the report that they all claim bashes the Bush administration for “lying”, “misleading”, “duping” and “misrepresenting” intelligence information for the purposes of launching an unnecessary war doesn’t come close to accusing the Bush administration of malfeasance… in fact, it bolsters the administration’s case.

On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.”

Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
…
[S]tatements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

Here’s the report, read it for yourself. (Of course, if you’ve been paying attention, you know that even the Clinton administration tied Saddam & Iraq to bin Laden and al-Qaida on multiple occasions in the 1990s and often even warned us of the threat Iraq posed)

Sure, lying and deceit has been a big part of the Iraq war… but it’s been on the part of disingenous and politically-motivated Democrats and their liberal friends in the media… It’s their specialty, so it’s not surprising they’re so good at it.

…against our military.

Congressional Democrats are warning U.S. Iraq commander General David Petraeus, and the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, not to attempt to minimize the seriousness of the situation in Iraq when they testify to Congress next week. VOA’s Dan Robinson reports from Capitol Hill.

A few days before General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker appear before House and Senate committees to deliver their latest update on Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes clear what she hopes they will not say.

She hopes they won’t say that there’s been success in Iraq. Because good news out of Iraq - or for America, in general - is bad news for Democrats.

And, by God, this is an election year…

(And don’t forget how they preemptively attacked General Petraeus last time he testified)

If only they distrusted America’s enemies as much as those who defend us from them.

I posted about this back in January, 2006 and again in June, 2006, and a new report is out that’s getting almost no attention in the media. The Wall Street Journal wonders why.

Five years on, few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that the Bush Administration invented a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq’s links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.

Just add this to the long list of links that includes the Clinton administration’s indictment of Osama Bin Laden that laid out his relationship with Iraq, and aside from Clinton’s own national coordinator of counterterrorism and computer security programs’ assessment, etc.

For 20 years, such “support” included using Fedayeen Saddam training camps to school terrorists, especially Palestinians but also non-Iraqis “directly associated” with al Qaeda, continuing up to the fall of Baghdad. Saddam also provided financial support and weapons, amounting to “a state-directed program of significant scale.” In July 2001, the regime began patronizing a terror cartel in Bahrain calling itself the Army of Muhammad, which, according to an Iraqi memo, “is under the wings of bin Laden.”

Yawn.

I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried.

MR. RUSSERT: If General Petraeus says, “Senator, in September you called the surge the suspension of belief. It has worked, and you know it’s worked”–let me finish–”you can see on the ground. I’m saying to you, Senator, or president-elect Clinton, don’t destroy Iraq. It’s working, the surge is working. Keep troops there just a few more months to get this reconciliation complete.”

SEN. CLINTON: …The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.

(hat tip: Allah)

Nevermind the fact that she and the others have opposed the surge the whole time.

Or the fact she disgracefully told General David Petraeus, to his face and on the record, that to believe his progress report on the success of the surge in Iraq would “require a willing suspension of disbelief.”

Or the fact she voted against a bill expressing support for General Petraeus.

Or the fact she and the others voted against a bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yeah, in spite of all of that, SHE deserves credit for the success of the troop surge.

Remember the bogus study that claimed 655,000 Iraqis had been killed because of the U.S.-led invasion? It was mostly debunked before the ink was even dry. And that was just based on the methodology… not even accounting for the obvious bias surrounding the study and its release.

Well this latest news should come as no big surprise:

A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Shocker.

Just add this to the long list of lies the Left has tried to propagate to oppose the Bush administration.

It’s sad that Democrats would be asking a question like this:

“What do the Democrats do if–yes: if, if, if–the surge appears to have succeeded?“

That you’d even have to worry about what political position you’d be forced to take should the U.S. succeed is quite telling.

Here’s a hint, though. You could begin by congratulating the brave men and women of our military for their success. But that probably never crossed your mind.