This is a two-part blogpost that documents how key figures in the Democratic Party, and the leftist anti-war groups who claim they now “own” it, have been subverting America’s war on Islamist terror – and the U.S. soldiers who are fighting it – despite their continued protestations that they “support our troops.”
The mainstream media (MSM) has failed (some would say refused) to hold Democrats accountable for their subversive actions and blatant hypocrisy. Therefore, it is up to individual bloggers (like me) to do the MSM’s job.
Part I (this essay) provides a narrative background and summary of the Democratic Party’s subversions since soon after the start of the Iraq war.
Part II provides a detailed, sourced chronology and background of the statements of (a) leading Democrats, (b) America’s military and intelligence agency leaders, and (c) al Qaeda and other militant Islamist groups – all in a timeline that enables the reader to instantly see the relationships between them.
Whether in a boxing match or a military confrontation, there is one guiding principle that transcends time, culture and language: the first one to leave the theater of conflict before it is concluded, loses.
When one of the opponents, however, claims a divine right to not only beat, but to snuff the life out of his adversary, this principle takes on added, timeless significance – because there surely will be another confrontation between them. And when that confrontation comes to pass – all else being equal – the one who remained in the “theater” will be at a significant, if not overwhelming psychological advantage. For as reality-based strategists and tacticians know, the ability to break the will of an opponent in physical or intellectual combat is often more important than other, traditional assets.
Modern philosophers, linguists, political spin-doctors and coffee shop pundits can do all the mental gymnastics they want, in an attempt to obfuscate this principle – but nothing changes its validity, as has been proven time after time throughout history.
Similarly, when a nation commits its military forces to a conflict, there are only two moral actions it can take once this decision is made:
(a) To encourage and enable its military to defeat the enemy as quickly and thoroughly as possible
(b) To stop military action if the nation can no longer justify the mission
In a nation such as America, with two (or more) major political parties, it is incumbent upon each party’s respective members to conduct debates and public presentations concerning international conflicts with accuracy, dignity and candor, while always being mindful of their patriotic duty. This principle becomes even more important as the significance of the conflict increases.
If the members of one of those parties, however, cannot conduct themselves in this manner, then it is up to their colleagues, as well as political journalists and others (especially educators) to pick up the slack, and hold them to account.
But what happens, in the midst of an international conflict:
When one party foments and pursues a scorched-earth propaganda campaign, in which they are willing to say and do anything, no matter how vile, demonstrably untrue, or subversive --- up to and including even echoing the enemy's propaganda --- in order to achieve and maintain power? .
When a cadre of influential journalists not only grants that party a cloak of immunity from criticism, but actually joins in their propaganda campaign?
When that political party (along with said “journalists”) uses its propaganda to demoralize their nation’s military, intelligence and law enforcement personnel, and undermines their capabilities, while emboldening and even morally justifying its enemies?
The answer is: You get the grotesque spectacle that is facing us today, courtesy of (a) the Democratic Party, and (b) the gang of seething, America-hating, jihadist-appeasing leftists which – according to their own braggadocio – has “bought, paid for and now owns” that party.
As I’ve said here at JQWorld and elsewhere, there is absolutely nothing wrong with patriotic dissent. America was borne out of long, heated debates among those who were, for the most part, patriotic dissenters.
Whereas patriotic dissenters would say, “I disagree with the proposed policy (or a past action), and here are the facts that back up my position,” however, shameless subversives resort to the scorched-earth tactics and propaganda described above. Ayn Rand put it aptly:
In summary, this is what many leading members of the Democratic Party have been doing since soon after the war in Iraq began – a war which, as Part II of this blogpost demonstrates, most of these same Democrats were supportive of, and in fact voted to authorize.
"A country at war often resorts to smearing its enemy by spreading atrocity stories – a practice which a free, civilized country need not and should not resort to. A civilized country, with a free press, can let the facts speak for themselves. But what is the moral-intellectual state of a country that spreads smears about itself and ignores or suppresses the facts known about the enemy’s atrocities?"
“The Wreckage Of The Consensus,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p.223.
The U.S. Constitution, as it pertains to war & peace
In our constitutionally-limited representative republic (remember, America is not a “democracy”), only Congress is empowered to declare war. For background, see here.
But according to our Constitution, once that declaration is made, and Congress authorizes the funding, all powers to train, deploy, and direct America’s armed forces are vested in the President, acting as Commander-In-Chief, and all the executives and military officers under his chain-of-command. When the war is concluded, the Senate must ratify a treaty.
Should Congress determine (whether on its own, or in concert with the President) that the war it has authorized must end before its enemy has been defeated, it has the power to pass legislation that stops funding it. Congress has no authority under our Constitution to issue a single order to any soldier or military commander – or to their Commander-In-Chief: the President.
In short, under the U.S. Constitution, once Congress “pulls the trigger,” by authorizing the use of military force, they have to live with the consequences of this decision, until the war is either concluded, or it later decides to stop funding it, through legislation.
The Democrats’ promises in the 2006 campaign
In the lead-up to the 2006 mid-term elections, the Democrats’ main campaign platform was their promise that if they gained the majority in the House and Senate, they:
Would end the war in Iraq, which many claimed was “illegal," "based on lies,” etc.
Would redirect America’s armed forces to fight "the real war,” which they defined as being against al Qaeda, and other militant Islamists/jihadists
But as leading figures in their party, they knew at the onset of making these promises that under our Constitution, they have neither the right nor the power to dictate or alter America’s military operations in Iraq, except to de-fund them (covered at JQWorld, here). The only way this ploy could work (and the only reason it did work) would be if – thanks to America’s government-run education system (among the largest sources of campaign funding for the Democratic Party) – the general public’s and even journalists’ lack of knowledge of, and misperceptions concerning the U.S. Constitution, would prevent a majority from discovering that these Democrats had no authority to realize their promises.
The only way this ploy could work (and the only reason it did work) would be if – thanks to America’s government-run education system (among the largest sources of campaign funding for the Democratic Party) – the general public’s and even journalists’ lack of knowledge of, and misperceptions concerning the U.S. Constitution, would prevent a majority from discovering that these Democrats had no authority to realize their promises.
Research data validating this admittedly disturbing contention abounds; here are some “highlights”:
Only 5% of American adults can correctly answer 10 basic questions regarding the U.S. Constitution. 61% of Americans cannot name the three branches of the federal government (25% cannot name any). One-third of college students are deemed “totally clueless” about the division of powers set forth in the Constitution.
[Center for Survey Research & Analysis survey of 1,012 adults nationwide, 5/16/01 - 6/6/01, for the First Amendment Center's report, “The State Of The First Amendment, 2001;” The American Bar Association: “Perceptions of the U.S. Justice System,” (1999); “Losing America's Memory: Historical Illiteracy in the 21st Century,” the 2001 report by the American Council of Trustees & Alumni.]
69% of Americans believe (or don’t know if) the U.S. Constitution contains Karl Marx’s communist doctrine, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (up from 45% in 1987).
[Caravan Group 2002 survey of 1012 U.S. adults 18 and older, for Columbia Law School, cited in “Americans Don’t Know Their Constitution: Columbia Law Survey Finds Confusion Over Founding Fathers vs. Karl Marx,” 5/29/02; “The American Public's Knowledge of the U.S. Constitution: A Hearst Report” (New York, 1987).]
Most Americans think the U.S. Constitution guarantees each citizen a “right” to health care, education, etc. But 92% cannot name even three of the rights contained in the First Amendment.
[StrategyOne poll of 1,000 adults for the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 6/7-14/02; Survey of 1,000 American adults by Synovate, for the McCormick Tribune Freedom Foundation, Jan. 20-22, 2006.]
43% of journalists are unaware that “freedom of the press” is contained in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
[2005 survey of 300 newspaper & television journalists, by the University of Connecticut's Department of Public Policy.]
And as was documented at JQWorld here, even one of the most highly-paid morning news show hosts could not (or would not) challenge a leading Democratic presidential candidate, when he said that it is the Congress's job to issue new orders to our soldiers if it deems their standing ones are ineffective. (Oh, and this candidate is also a former professor of constitutional law.)
Furthermore, these Democrats knew that the premature withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq they were advocating was precisely what our enemies (particularly al Qaeda in Iraq and beyond, and the splinter jihadist groups they aligned with) were demanding, and desperately hoping for.
Top Democrats made these statements knowing that by 2005, al Qaeda was already in Iraq, and was fomenting and perpetrating many, if not most of the attacks on our soldiers there. They also knew that al Qaeda’s leadership had repeatedly proclaimed that if it could force the U.S. military into withdrawal, Iraq would become its new base of operations and the epicenter of its new caliphate (Islamist empire), from which it would plan and execute new attacks against America, and other Western nations.
The al Qaeda strategy: Wear down America’s resolve through attacks and propaganda; continue radical Islam’s “convergence” with the radical left; use the compliant Western MSM
Al Qaeda, and the splinter groups it aligned with in Iraq, believed that if they could just wear us down, America’s long struggle against Islamist terrorism could be brought to a premature conclusion. This would hand an incalculably important strategic and propaganda victory to them.
The key, as they knew from experience, would be to perpetrate a steady stream of horrific attacks in Iraq, the pictures and videos of which some Democrats – along with their MSM enablers – would endlessly broadcast and refer to, as justifying our withdrawal.
Additionally, al Qaeda and their affiliated groups have learned from experience that our MSM:
Has an unquenchable thirst to report and repeat, ad nauseam, the worst possible depictions of the U.S. military’s efforts in Iraq --- while refusing to cover, or burying (a) exonerating evidence, and (b) the genuine atrocities being committed by the savages that our soldiers are fighting
Has an endless willingness to downplay or refuse to cover the accomplishments or heroism of our military’s efforts – let alone present an accurate depiction of the greater context in which these battles are being fought
This knowledge led al Qaeda to create its own media production and propaganda division, called al Sahab. Al Qaeda is now even offering free online classes in website design and PhotoShop, so its affiliated members can generate propaganda and fake imagery (both of which they’ve discovered our MSM will run ad nauseam, without question, time, and time, and time, and time, and time again.
Clearly, the ultimate target of all of al Qaeda's efforts and propaganda has been the Democratic Party, the rabid leftists who now all but completely control it, and our MSM. Al Qaeda and affiliated groups know that if they can compel the Democrats to finally pull the funding for the U.S. military’s efforts in Iraq, they – and their allies – will literally be “home” free, to build their new base of operations there, atop America’s surrender.
Furthermore, leading Democrats cannot help but know that such a victory, handed to al Qaeda in Iraq (and beyond), would serve to:
Make our next (inevitable) conflict with them that much bloodier and drawn-out
Embolden every variant of America’s actual and aspiring enemies, around the world, and undermine our ability to defend ourselves and our vital national security interests
And as for the “Islamist-leftist” convergence, one need look no further than bin Laden’s latest video screed, in which he (a) echoes – practically verbatim – the same anti-American, anti-capitalism propaganda that the most ardent leftist groups (and some Democrats) have been using to undermine America, and (b) castigates the Democrats for failing in their efforts to force our soldiers to surrender Iraq to al Qaeda.
But for readers who are still doubtful of the "Islamist-leftist" convergence, additional evidence abounds (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here).
The Democrats willingly gave al Qaeda and other jihadists fresh, new propaganda to use against us
Soon after the (Congressionally-authorized) war in Iraq began in 2003, many leading Democrats began to subvert America’s efforts to win the war, by attacking the individuals who are responsible for carrying out those efforts: our soldiers, and their commanders in the field.
These Democrats, both individually and collectively:
Accused our soldiers of committing various atrocities – many if not most of which were later found to be false, overblown or completely decontextualized
Gave illegitimate moral ammunition for our enemies to use as propaganda to rally support for their cause. Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups must have said to themselves, “Heck, if their own leaders are admitting that their soldiers are acting like Nazis, murderers, terrorists, sadists, etc., and say that they should surrender to us, who are we to argue?”
Indignantly denied that there is any legitimate basis on which to criticize them, even if their accusations sound eerily similar to (if not carbon copies of) those that were fabricated and used by our enemies
And as if on cue, the MSM refused to hold these Democrats to account for such statements, and the impact this propaganda was having on our soldiers – and on the enemy.
For a sampling of how leading Democrats in Congress (and some of their underlings) have acted to subvert our soldiers and their leaders, consider the following – all of which is documented in detail, in Part II of this blogpost:
They repeatedly said that the war is “wrong,” “illegitimate,” and “based on lies,” and that our soldiers’ lives were being “wasted” – while at the same time saying that they “support our troops,” and their “bravery,” etc.
Many of those uttering these statements were the very same Democrats who voted to authorize this war in 2002, and applauded the leadup to it in 2003.
The senior Democrat in charge of military appropriations called a group of our soldiers – most of whom were later exonerated – “cold-blooded murderers,” before investigations into their actions had even begun. Another Democrat, who is running for president, claimed that our military is deliberately “air raiding villages and killing (targeting) civilians,” thereby making things worse.
Shortly after taking control of Congress, on January 26, 2007, the Democrat-led Senate unanimously approved Gen. David Petraeus to be the new top commander in Iraq, and to lead the president’s new “surge” strategy. Yet within 6 weeks of his confirmation, the Democratic leadership and their underlings began to denounce Gen. Petraeus as being unwilling to tell the truth, and refused to attend his Iraq status briefings.
It was later discovered that these same Democratic “leaders” were holding daily conference calls with seething leftist anti-war groups – but would not meet with or listen to soldiers who were supportive of our military’s efforts in Iraq.
Soon thereafter, and despite the progress that Gen. Petraeus was reporting, the Senate’s top Democrat said that he would “not believe anything he (Petraeus) has to say.”
Long before all 30,000 additional soldiers had even arrived in Iraq, they began making major progress in their mission – yet leading Democrats proclaimed, “This war is lost,” and were declaring the “surge” “a failure,” that “won’t work,” “can’t work,” and/or is “only making things worse.”
When “the surge” starting showing very positive results, many Democrats – like the MSM that enables them – refused to discuss or acknowledge anything other than the worst possible depictions of what was going on in Iraq.
Amidst their subterfuge, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader gleefully said, "We are going to gain seats (in the Senate) as a result of this war... the numbers are astounding."
In concert with their seething leftist anti-war activist base, Democrats engaged in a shameless effort to unjustifiably slander Gen. Petraeus as “a liar,” and “a traitor,” before he even had a chance to give Congress the September progress report that the Democrats mandated, as part of their May war-funding bill.
The graphic below documents just some of unforgivable betrayals that top Democrats perpetrated on America and our soldiers, which are chronicled in Part II of this blogpost:
It was not until early August – about 6 weeks after the last of the “surge” troops had arrived in Iraq – that a handful of top Democrats began to quietly acknowledge that the “surge” was indeed showing significant results. Results that they and their leadership said only weeks earlier would be impossible for our military to achieve.
But by then, the damage had already been done.
And despite the grave losses that the U.S. military had inflicted upon them, al Qaeda and its affiliated groups could not help but feel that their propaganda efforts had delivered solid, vital results, and more. Incredibly, it was the Democrats who had actually been providing much of the propaganda that undermined and discredited our soldiers’ efforts, and hard-fought accomplishments.
Part II of this blog – A detailed chronology of key events and statements
Although much of the above information has been reported in various forums, at different times, what did not exist was a detailed, sourced, chronological timeline of:
The most outrageous, slanderous statements that Democrats have made about our soldiers, their commanders, their mission, and the outcome of their efforts, which could only undermine their morale, and serve to hand propaganda victories to our enemies
The statements of U.S. military and intelligence leaders that contradict what the Democrats said – and which demonstrate that Democrats could not have been unaware that the statements being made by their party’s leadership were untrue, subversive to our military, and its efforts in Iraq
The statements of al Qaeda and other militant Islamist groups, demonstrating the fact that they were paying very close attention to the Democrats and our MSM, and that they were tailoring their actions and messages to coincide with and reinforce their efforts to prematurely withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq
For the first time, via Part II of this blogpost, the lay observer can follow, with great detail, the essential “ping-pong” of statements that got us to where we are now, from the three parties as indicated above.
Here’s how Part II is organized:
Conclusion, and preface to Part II of this blogpost
Despite what the seething leftist groups, certain Democratrs, al Qaeda, and innumerable other America-hating liars and propagandists may say, never before in history has there been a braver, more competent, more honorable and more compassionate military than the one now serving America, and which is acting on our behalf in Iraq, Afghanistan and other nests of jihadist activity around the world.
It’s time that those who comprise the U.S. armed forces – from the rank and file “grunts” all the way up to their top commanders – began getting the support, respect, credit and fair treatment that they richly deserve.
The shame that the Democratic Party has brought upon itself for its despicable behavior up to this point can never be washed away. Nor can the betrayal that many soldiers rightfully feel the Democrats have heaped upon them. And the soldiers whose lives were snuffed out by jihadist murderers – monsters who could only have been emboldened and encouraged by the Democratic Party’s subversive actions and denials – will stand as an eternal, grim legacy of what is documented in both parts of this post.
It is long overdue for the Democrats be held to account for what they have done. And it is eminently clear that the MSM, which acts like uncritical lapdogs for the Democrats, isn’t going to do so any time soon.
Perhaps, by reading this blogpost, some Democrats who possess even a flickering remainder of honor and decency may decide to embark on a more rational and patriotic course of action for the future.
Let us hope.
Go to Part II.
Original content is © Copyright 2007 by JonQuixoteWorld.blogspot.com. Email to firstname.lastname@example.org