The Woman Who Should Have Won The Nobel Peace Prize

.

Contrary to the pathological liar-propagandist who received the (once-honored) Nobel Peace Prize this year, no one on the face of the Earth is more deserving of this award than Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Perhaps at some point in the future, those who appoint the people who stand in judgment of an individual's contributions to a more peaceful, prosperous and just society, will begin to apply and honor something resembling an objective standard to their criteria. For if that had happened in years past, this remarkable woman would have been the hands-down winner this year.

As you watch these videos, ask yourself: How is it that a woman who courageously stood up to and broke free of the bonds of physical and psychological oppression, such as Ms. Hirsi-Ali, is unknown to all but a handful of Americans --- and most tragically, to young Americans? Who is more deserving of recognition and encouragement --- even if you disagree with her --- Ms. Hirsi-Ali, or any of the supposed "role models" for young people that litter our magazines, radio stations, TV programs and movies? Who is truly advocating peace --- and who is advocating, enabling and even justifying things that can only lead to conflict, and the subversion of freedom?

Editorializing is over. Sit back, and enjoy:

.

JQWorld Exclusive: Charlie Manson To Speak At Columbia!!!

.

CHARLIE MANSON TO SPEAK AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Offer to be made once mass-murdering psychopath is paroled, and appointed as head of a new, tolerant nation: "Nutjobistan" .

JQWorldNews
Dateline: September 25, 2007

Continuing its recent tradition of embracing “diversity” and “dialogue” and “tolerance” to foster global peace, Columbia University will soon announce that it will be sponsoring a speech by convicted mass-murderer Charlie Manson at some point in the near future.

In a pre-release statement obtained by a secret source inside this prestigious institution, JQWorld has learned that Columbia University Dean John Coatsworth – who recently hosted a speech by Iranian madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and said that if Adolph Hitler were alive, he’d sponsor a speech by him as well – is planning to announce:

“Yes, Mr. Manson has something of a checkered past, and has demonstrated numerous anti-social tendencies.

"But it’s recently come to our attention that in conjunction with the UN, the European Union --- in order to create a nurturing, supportive environment for the most psychopathic members of our global family --- will be establishing a tiny, new nation in its midst, that will be exclusively occupied and run by criminally insane Jew-haters and America-bashers: Nutjobistan.

“Through sources within the EU’s senior leadership, I’ve also learned that to facilitate cross-cultural understanding, the constituent members of the future Nutjobistan have indicated that there is only one man in a position to lead this new, young nation: convicted mass-murderer Charlie Manson, assuming he is paroled soon. And to ensure that this election runs smoothly, I’ve learned that former president Jimmy Carter has volunteered to travel to Nutjobistan, to oversee ballot-counting.

“As part of my role to inculcate our students with a greater appreciation not only for the world they’re about to inherit, but also of the most troubled people that inhabit it, I’ve made the decision that once Mr. Manson is duly elected as President of Nutjobistan, Columbia would be happy to sponsor a speech by him.

"To those who say that a taxpayer-subsidized American university as prestigious as Columbia should not be hosting a speech by a person such as Mr. Manson, I ask them: Does not the advancement of cross-cultural understanding benefit our young people? Does not Mr. Manson have a right to redeem himself? And do we, as a leading research institution, not have a moral obligation to help facilitate, in a nurturing, positive environment, the healing that Mr. Manson so obviously yearns for?

“I therefore urge our critics to find some sympathy within themselves, and not be so intolerant of, and closed-minded to Columbia’s efforts in outreach and diplomacy. After all, Mr. Manson will soon be the elected leader of the newest member of our family of nations --- should we not extend every courtesy to its legitimate leader?"

A JQWorldNews reporter made contact with Dean Coatsworth, and asked if Columbia would be also willing to host speeches by other prominent national figures such as President Bush, former UN Ambassador John Bolton, or Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. Coatsworth responded:

“Are you (expletive) crazy??? Of course not. They’re all a bunch of mass-murdering, fascist neocons, who are hell-bent on enslaving the world for their own greed. They have absolutely no understanding of cross-cultural dialogue, and believe that military might is the answer to every problem --- especially with maniacal, terror-sponsoring dictators who lust after nuclear weapons. Heck, didn't you see what our tolerant, inclusive, peace-seeking, dialogue-cherishing student body did to the founder of the Minuteman Project, when he came to speak at Columbia last year? We don't take kindly to people who stand on principle, and for the defense of the American people around here.”

When our reporter pointed out that this description is actually much more appropriate to figures such as Hitler, Ahmadinejad and Manson, Coatsworth angrily replied:

“You see, you don’t understand education at all. Those people, unlike the Bush cabal, have said that their mission is to foster global peace and social justice – and we believe them. His Excellency, President Ahmadinejad, said this only yesterday. Unlike Bush, they haven’t lied to us and taken away all of our civil rights, listened in on our phone calls, and so on."

As he stormed off, Coatsworth tossed our reporter one final insult:

“Go get a GED, then get back to me, ok? I don’t have time for this nonsense. I've got a school-full of young Americans to indoctrinate... er, I mean, educate, dammit!!!”

Original content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to jonquix@hotmail.com

.

A Culture Of Corruption (and Betrayal), Indeed...

.

Senate votes to condemn MoveOn.org slander ad against Gen. Petraeus;
25 Democratic senators, afraid to stand up to MoveOn.org, vote against measure

American Thinker analysis here, with note on how Obama abstained from vote


MoveOn.org, which claims it has "bought, paid for and owns" the Democratic Party, is now organizing vicious retaliation campaigns against any Democrat who votes against it, or refuses to submit to its "surrender Iraq to al Qaeda" line

In bow of submission, Democrats now expected to resume their "daily call for surrender" with MoveOn.org and other seething, America-hating, leftist pressure groups

Sen. John McCain echoes JonQuixoteWorld question: If Democrats can't even stand up to MoveOn.org, how are they going to stand up against jihadists?

For a comprehensive chronicle of the Democrats' betrayal of America and our soldiers, and their emboldening of jihadists, see the following original JQWorld essays:

"But They Support Our Troops --- No, Really!!!" Parts I & II

Original content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to jonquix@hotmail.com

.

Part I: But They Support Our Troops - No, Really!!!

.
Summary:

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:

"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.

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.

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.

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 jonquix@hotmail.com

.

Part II: But They Support Our Troops - No, Really!!!

.
Please see Part I of this post for a detailed background and structural explanation of this follow-up post.

Tip: For best viewing of this post, close out your Favorites sidebar to maximize screen width.

________________________________________________

BACKGROUND: DEMOCRATS ON IRAQ, 1992-2003
________________________________________________

September 29, 1992:

Al Gore blasts President Bush for not taking out Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War, due to the threat he posed to America, and his involvement in and support of terrorism:

In this video, Gore, then a candidate in the home-stretch of the 1992 presidential campaign, was addressing the Center for National Policy in Washington. In the course of accusing the Bush administration of allegedly betraying America by allowing the Saddam/Iraq menace to fester --- desite the fact that the UN resolution for the Gulf War only permitted coalition forces to drive Saddam out of Kuwait, and no more --- Gore was articulating the (supposed) tougher line that the Democrats would take on issues such as this, if elected in a mere five weeks.

What Gore forgot (or refused) to mention, amidst all of his faux-principles, is that as a Senator in 1990, he threatened to vote against the war if Republican Senators Dole and Simpson didn't give him 20 minutes of prime-time on the Senate floor. In summary, Gore sold his vote for the war for a purely self-aggrandizing spotlight moment, in preparation for his own run for the Presidency in 1992.

Did the fact that the mainstream media refused to expose this fact, then or since, have anything to do with Al Gore's confidence in telling such a long string of lies and distortions from that point, until this very day? One wonders.

-----------------------------


NEXT, here is a montage of statements by top Democrats from the early 1990s all the way through 2003, expressing the grave, gathering threat that Saddam Hussein was becoming, why the U.S. has to act against him, and in 2002-2003, justifying America's military action against Iraq, especially in our post-9/11 world:

As is noted in Part I of this post, every last one of these Democrats knew, or had an obligation to know two things:

(1) That once Congress "pulled the trigger" on military action against Iraq, under the U.S. Constitution, it would have to stand by that decision until the Commander-In-Chief pulled our soldiers out (or unless they voted to cut off the funding).

(2) That the intelligence upon which they claimed their statements were based upon was reliable and verified.

Read all the key quotes here.

--------------------------------------

This vital background information and context, and that which is contained in Part I of this post, will prepare you to review and appreciate the significance of the following.

The remainder of this post documents the systemic subversion and denial that many of these very same Democrats committed against America, our soldiers and our national security, since soon after the 2003 invasion of Iraq (which most of them voted for), until this very day.

________________________________________________

BACKGROUND: JUNE 2005 - AUGUST 2006
________________________________________________

June 14, 2005
Sen. Richard Durbin, (D-IL):
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

(See notes 1-3)

June 17, 2005
Al-Jazeera
Headline: US Senator Stands By Nazi Remark: "A US senator has refused to apologise for comparing the actions of US soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to those of Nazis, while others have decried or defended the mandate and method used to hold prisoners there.
US Senator Dick Durbin on Wednesday refused to apologise for comments he made on the Senate floor referring to Nazis, Soviet gulags and a 'mad regime' like Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in Cambodia."

July 9, 2005
Ayman al Zawahiri, #2 of al Qaeda
in letter to Abu Musab al Zarqawi, al Qaeda - Iraq:
"The jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate -- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq....The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage...the clash with Israel...The mujahedeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal."

December 6, 2005

Sen. John Kerry, (D-MA):
"And there is no reason… that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."


December 9, 2005
Howard Dean, Chairman, Democratic National Committee:
"The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong."

January 6, 2006
Ayman al Zawahiri, #2 of al Qaeda
"Bush, you must admit that you have been defeated in Iraq and that you are being defeated in Afghanistan and that you will soon be defeated in Palestine."


April 25, 2006
Ayman al Zarqawi*, al Qaeda - Iraq
In a lengthy diatribe, he accused Bush of lying to Americans about U.S. military victories in Iraq. U.S. forces, he predicted, "will go out of Iraq humiliated, defeated."
(*Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, U.S. military spokesman, told a Baghdad news briefing that more than 90 percent of the suicide attacks in Iraq were being carried out by terrorist forces recruited and trained by Zarqawi.)

May 28, 2006
Rep. John Murtha, (D-PA):
Accused U.S. Marines in Haditha of "cold-blooded murder... of women and children," and alleged, "there has to have been a cover-up... (I) will not excuse murder and that what's happened..." (See Note 4)

________________________________________________

SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2006
________________________________________________

BACKGROUND

The Democrats announce that if they win the November Congressional elections, they will force President Bush to implement "a new direction for America," and the war on Islamist terror. They employ an array of subversive propaganda to simultaneously undermine our efforts in Iraq, while echoing many of our enemies' allegations.

Al Qaeda (in Iraq and elsewhere) and other militant Islamist murderers have a few things to say about all that --- before and after the election. And they created their own new, high-tech media division to produce their messages. In fact, they're even offering free online classes in website design and Photoshop, to create and distribute the anti-American, pro-jihad media that it knows the Western and American MSM gobbles up without criticism or challenge, like kittens to warm milk.

But let's not forget... the Democrats "support our soldiers," and will "fight the real war on terror, against al Qaeda," "based on reality, not on lies."

September 29, 2006
Ayman al Zawahiri, #2 of al Qaeda:
(To President Bush): "Can't you be honest at least once in your life and admit that you are a deceitful liar who intentionally deceived your nation when you drove them to war in Iraq under the pretext of the presence of nuclear weapons there and under the pretext of al Qaeda's connections with Saddam Hussein, following which evidence proved that you intentionally lied and misled?"

October 31, 2006
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA):
"Education -- if you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
(JQWorld: U.S. soldiers in Iraq had a little message to Kerry in response, here)

November 2, 2006

Islamic Jihad and other jihadist leaders urge US citizens to vote Democrats into power, but claim that Nancy Pelosi is "nuts." If the US pulls out of Iraq, they say, "it will prove that jihadi 'resistance' works," and will encourage jihadists everywhere to continue their strategies.

November 7, 2006
DEMOCRATS ELECTED TO MAJORITY IN HOUSE AND SENATE

Largely on promises to end war in Iraq

November 10, 2006
Supreme Iranian leader Mohammed Khameini
Khameini calls Democrats' Congressional victory “a victory for Iran.” "With the scandalous defeat of America's policies in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, America's threats are empty threats on an international scale."

November 12, 2006
Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, aka Abu Ayyub al-Masri, Al Qaeda chief in Iraq:
Al-Muhajir calls Bush "the most stupid president" in U.S. history. He applauds US voting Democrats into power as “reasonable."
"The American people have put their feet on the right path... (and) voted for something reasonable in the last election... (W)e will not rest from our jihad until we... have blown up the filthiest house --- which is called the White House."

November 28, 2006
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA):
Denies that al Qaeda is perpetrating horrific acts of terror in Iraq; falsely claims that "The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the President is resorting to it again." (See Note 5)

December 6, 2006
Rep. Silvestre Reyes, Incoming House Intelligence Committee Chairman (D-TX):
"I would say (we need to send another) 20,000 to 30,000 (troops to Iraq), for the specific purpose of making sure those (Islamist & insurgent) militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military… (W)e certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes (like) Afghanistan… (W)e could not allow Iraq to become a safe haven for Al Qaeda, for Hamas, for Hizbullah, or anybody else. We cannot allow Iran or Syria to have a free hand in there to further destabilize the Middle East. We’re all interested in getting out of Iraq. That’s a common goal. How we do it, I think, is the tough part. There are those that say, they don’t care what Iraq looks like once we leave there. ‘Let’s just leave there,’ (they say). And I argue against that. I don’t think that’s responsible. And I think it plays right into the hands of Syria and Iran.” (See Note 6)

December 18, 2006

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
"Everyone knows there is no military solution to the difficulties we face in Iraq... I'm not going to believe this president again." (See Notes 7 & 8)

December 20, 2006
Ayman al Zawahiri, # 2 of al Qaeda
"I repeat what I mentioned previously: The backing of the Jihad in Afghanistan and Iraq today is to back the most important battlefields in which the Crusade against Islam and Muslims is in progress. And the defeat of the Crusaders there -- soon, Allah permitting -- will have a far-reaching effect on the future of the Muslim Ummah, Allah willing."
"(I have) a message to the Democrats in America. I tell them: you must realize two facts. The first is that you aren’t the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost: rather, the Mujahideen – the Muslim Ummah’s vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq – are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost."

________________________________________________

JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2007
________________________________________________

BACKGROUND

January 10: President Bush announces surge strategy, to send 21,500 more troops* to Iraq & Afghanistan; starts by sending 3,500 more troops now. Explains nature of conflict, insurgents' and al Qaeda's efforts to drive U.S. from Iraq, in order to build nucleus of caliphate, base of operations from which to support and launch new attacks against the U.S. and Western nations. States belief that insurgents, al Qaeda "will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering" until they are defeated. Accepts responsibility for fact that more progress has not been made thus far, but states that commanders on ground think this new strategy will address those shortcomings and can lead to victory.
(*later raised to 30,000, per request of commanders on ground in Iraq)

January 23: President Bush expands on "surge" strategy, principles of conflict, at State Of The Union address.

January 26: (Democrat-led) Senate unanimously approves Gen. David Petraeus to lead new strategy, including "surge," in Iraq.

February 2: Iraq civilian death statistics, which were and are being endlessly echoed by mainstream media, Congressional Democrats, leftist activist groups and even bin Laden himself (see Sept. 8, 2007 video) --- supposedly attributable to U.S. military actions --- are debunked, found to be decontextualized, and deliberately overblown by a huge margin.

February 12: House issues resolution condemning Bush’s "surge" plan.

February 17: Senate passes same resolution, but falls shy of 60 votes necessary to override promised veto.

January 8, 2007

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA):
Says: "This isn't a war to win..; (I)f you send in troops, you go full force...;" and that she "never supported" sending U.S. military forces into Iraq. (See Note 9)

January 9, 2007
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA):
"We won't cut off funding for our troops."

January 9, 2007
Sen. Harry Reid, Majority Leader (D-NV)
Las Vegas Review-Journal, 01/09/07:
"I am totally opposed to the escalation."

January 18, 2007: John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence
(Among other factors, U.S. success in Iraq will depend...) "on the extent to which extremists, most notably al Qaeda in Iraq, can be defeated in their attempts to foment intersectarian struggle between Shi'a and Sunnis..."


January 18: Gen. Michael Hayden, CIA Director
"I strongly believe... that U.S. failure in Iraq... would lead to al Qaeda with what it is they said is their goal there, which is the foundations of the caliphate, and in operational terms for us, a safe haven from which then to plan and conduct attacks against the West.”

January 19, 2007
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA):
"This is Bush's war... it's wrong... (But) our soldiers have not died in vain..."


January 24, 2007
Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL):
Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Senate hearing:
"The President’s strategy will not work."

January 24, 2007
Sen. John Kerry, (D-MA):
Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Senate hearing:
"I tell you what: I’m confident it (the surge strategy) will not work."

February 11, 2007
Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL):
"Three thousand soldiers' lives have been wasted in Iraq."

February 18, 2007
Sen. Harry Reid, Majority Leader (D-NV):
Calls Iraq war (which he voted to approve) "the worst foreign policy mistake in U.S. history"

February 27, 2007: Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, Director, Defense Intelligence Agency:
"Al Qaeda is the largest and most active of the Iraq-based terrorist groups."

________________________________________________

MARCH-APRIL 2007
________________________________________________

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40-50% of additional U.S. forces (12-15,000) have now been deployed to Iraq.

March: Congressional Democrats attempt to usurp the U.S. Constitution to make U.S. military forces surrender in Iraq via legisation that violates separation of powers, by issuing commands to U.S. military personnel --- a power that the Constitution exclusively reserves for the President, acting as the military's Commander-In-Chief. More here on how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) also violated the U.S. Constitution by acting in illegitimate capacity to conduct U.S. foreign policy.

March 7: Gen. Petraeus reported mixed progress in Iraq, but also some very positive signs.

March 8: All top Democrats refused to attend briefing by Gen. Petraeus (who they confirmed --- unanimously --- barely six weeks earlier, on January 26, 2007)

April 9: All Democrats but one refused to attend briefing by Gen. Petraeus (repeat of March 8).

April (undated): Insurgent attacks against U.S. forces in Fallujah have stopped, thanks to the "surge."

April 23: Democrat-led Congress passes unconstitutional legisation ordering troop pullout from Iraq to begin on October 1, to be completed 6 months later (later vetoed by Bush).

April 24: Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) declares that "it is Congress's job to micromanage this war." (See Note 10)

March 4, 2007
Sen. Harry Reid, (D-NV), on "The Charlie Rose Show":
"No one is talking about cutting off the funds (for our soldiers in Iraq).”

Yet only four days later....

March 9, 2007
Rep. David Obey, (D-WI):
“We’re trying to use the supplemental to end the war,” Obey said (to a protester). “You can’t end the war if you’re going against the supplemental. It’s time these idiot liberals understood that.”
“The liberal groups are jumping around without knowing what the hell is in the bill,” he bellowed. “You don’t have to cut off funds for an activity that doesn’t exist.”
“The language we have in the resolution ends the authority for the war,” he added.
“It makes it illegal to proceed with the war. You don’t have to de-fund something if the war doesn’t exist.”
"

How the hell do you think we’re going to get the votes to cut off the war?”
“You cut off the funding,” an onlooker replied.
“How, if you don’t have the votes?” Obey roared in response. “That bill ends the war! If that isn’t good enough for you, you’re smoking something illegal. You’ve got your facts screwed up... (W)e do have the votes to end the legal authority for the war, that’s the same as de-funding it.”
“I hate this war... (I)t’s the worst foreign policy disaster in my life time."

March 20, 2007: Gen. Petraeus:
"We're clearing (Sadr City) neighborhood by neighborhood… (T)he results have been dramatic... (O)ur goal is to pull al Qaeda out by its roots, wherever it tries to take hold." Where once tactical units were 'scraping' for intelligence information, they now have 'information overload,' the general said. “After our guys are in the neighborhood for four or five days, the people realize they’re not going to just leave them like we did in the past. Then they begin to come in with so much information on the enemy that we can’t process it fast enough.

”

April 14, 2007
Sen. Harry Reid, Majority Leader (D-NV):
"We (Democrats) are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."


April 19, 2007
Sen. Harry Reid, Majority Leader (D-NV):
"This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything."

April 19, 2007
PressTV (Iran)
"US Has Lost War In Iraq: US Democrat"

April 20, 2007
Al-Jazeera.net
"Iraq War 'Lost,' Says Top Democrat"

April 21-30 (here, here): U.S. soldiers in Iraq send a message to Sen. Reid:
"WE ARE NOT LOSING THIS WAR!!!"

April 23, 2007
Sen. Harry Reid, Majority Leader (D-NV):
Says he won't believe anything Gen. Petraeus has to say about progress in Iraq.

________________________________________________

MAY 2007
________________________________________________

BACKGROUND

Approximately 75% of additional U.S. forces (22,500) have now been deployed to Iraq.

May 4: It is discovered that Congressional Democrats have been holding daily conference calls with leftist activist groups to discuss, plan and execute media & legislative strategies for making U.S. forces withdraw from (surrender) Iraq (covered by JQWorld here)

May 25: Over hysterical opposition and threats from seething anti-war, America-bashing leftist groups, Democrat-led Congress passed timeline-free war-funding bill, which includes clause ordering President Bush to submit progress reports in July and September; Bush signs the bill --- even though it contains $17 billion in spending that is totally unrelated to the war.

May 5, 2007
Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda #2:
In a new video posted today on the Internet, al Qaeda's No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri, mocks the bill passed by Congress setting a timetable for the pullout of U.S. troops in Iraq. "This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap." Continuing in the same tone, Zawahri says, "We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson....
(T)he critical importance of the jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan becomes clear, because the defeat of the Crusaders there -- soon, Allah permitting -- will lead to the setting up of two mujahid emirates which will be launch pads for the liberation of the Islamic lands and the establishment of the Caliphate."

May 8, 2007: Gen. Petreaus:
"Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda’s global campaign"

May 1, 2007
Sen. Ted Kennedy, (D-MA)
Congressional Record, S.5367:
“The surge was supposed to bring stability... (I)t has not and it will not.”

May 16, 2007
Sen. Dick Durbin, (D-IL)
Congressional Record, S.6162:
"The (Bush) administration's policy in Iraq has failed."

May 25, 2007
Sen. Russ Feingold, (D-WI):
"We are moving backward... (I)nstead of forcing the president to safely redeploy our troops, instead of coming up with a strategy providing assistance to a post-redeployment Iraq, and instead of a renewed focus on the global fight against al Qaeda, we are faced with a spending bill that kicks the can down the road and buys the administration time."

May 29, 2007
Adam Gadhan, aka Azzam al-Amriki ("The American al Qaeda"):
"And let us be clear: A(n American) pullout from Iraq alone, in the absence of compliance with the remainder of our legitimate demands, will get you nowhere, and will not save you from our strikes.
So stop wasting your time and trying to save face with these futile farcical maneuvers on... Capitol Hill and start making some serious moves... (T)his is not a call for negotiations. We don't negotiate with baby-killers and war criminals like you."

________________________________________________

JUNE 2007
________________________________________________

BACKGROUND

The last of the 30,000 additional U.S. forces for the "surge" are deployed to Iraq.

June 14: MEMRI reports that "e-jihadis," tech-savvy militant Islamists, are being deployed to "infiltrate non-Islamic forums," such as news sites and blogs, to spread Islamist propaganda, subvert America's will to fight back in war that Islamists have declared upon it.

June 1, 2007

Sen. Joe Biden, (D-DE):
"The surge has not worked, and (it) will not work."

June 2, 2007
Rep. John Murtha, (D-PA):
Blamed the phenomenon of jihadists in America on the U.S. military's presence in Iraq: "Our presence in Iraq, our occupation in Iraq, gives these people the inspiration. Now, we didn’t have this problem before, they came from Afghanistan. But, now we even have it in the United States. So, I’m absolutely convinced that this is the kind of thing that inspires these people." (See Note 11)

June 9, 2007
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) & Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):
“As many had foreseen, the escalation ('surge') has failed to produce the intended results."

________________________________________________

JULY 2007
________________________________________________

BACKGROUND

July 18: Gen. Petraeus reports on the solid progress that U.S. forces in the "surge" are making in Iraq, including battles against al Qaeda, and in dramatically reducing violence in the notorious Anbar Province. (Note: Also see Sen. Charles Schumer's lie on Sept. 5, however, in which he tries to rob U.S. soldiers of the credit for what they accomplished in Anbar.)

July 23: Sen. Reid, other top Democrats in Congress refuse to meet with or listen to soldiers from Vets For Freedom to hear of their support for maintaining Iraq operations; instead, they only meet with and listen to anti-war soldiers. Vets For Freedom press release here.

July 24: Analysis in American Thinker --- "The Surge Succeeds"

July 25: Analysis in NonPartyPolitics: "Harry Reid's So-Called 'Lost War'" (JQWorld: A must-read)

July 27: At least 30 released Guanatanamo detainess return to jihad, attempting to murder U.S. soldiers

July 30: HotAir analysis of NY Times editorial by (Democrat-leaning) Brookings Institution --- "A War We Just Might Win"

July 9, 2007
Sen. Harry Reid, Majority Leader (D-NV):
"The president’s current (surge) strategy is not working, and we cannot wait until (Gen. Petraeus's report in) September to act."

July 9, 2007
Sen. Jim Webb, (D-VA):
“I don't care what the (Petraeus) report says in September. This is an amendment that needs to pass regardless of what we're doing in the future in Iraq."

July 11, 2007: Gen. Petraeus:
"The enemy in Iraq that is causing the horrific attacks, that is igniting the sectarian violence, that is causing the mass casualties and damage of the infrastructure, by and large, is al Qaeda."


July 11, 2007: Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner:
"Al Qaeda leaders have declared Iraq their central front. Al Qaeda in Iraq and its affiliates are the greatest source of spectacular attacks and are fueling sectarian violence. Our intelligence community, the government of Iraq and the Multinational Force all assess al Qaeda in Iraq as the main near-term threat... (B)etween 80 and 90 percent of the suicide attacks in Iraq are being carried out by foreign-born al Qaeda terrorists."

July 17, 2007
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD):
“We know the president’s surge policy has not worked… (it) has put this nation at greater risk."

July 17, 2007
Sen. Diane Feinstein, (D-CA):
"A majority of the Senate sees that the surge is not working... (I) have heard distinguished Members of this body say: 'Why not wait until September?' I believe the answer is clear. When you know things are moving in the wrong direction, why wait to act?”

July 18, 2007
Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL)
NBC Today Show
Tells Matt Lauer that (summary) our troops have done a great job in Iraq with the orders they've been given --- but that the orders they've been given were ineffective. Then, Obama went on to say that in our civilian-led military, it is in part the Congress's job to issue new orders in such a scenario. (See Note 12)


August 13, 2007
Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL):
"We've got to get the job done there (Afghanistan). And that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there." (See Note 13)

________________________________________________

AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2007
________________________________________________

BACKGROUND

At this point, two months after the "surge" reached its full strength, the number of stories about the phenomenal progress our soldiers are making, under the direction of Gen. Petraeus, increases. A sampling:

• Aug. 5: 25,000 (Iraqis) Turn Against Insurgency, Military Says

• Aug. 6: Analysis: Military Makes Gains in Iraq

• Aug. 6: Adhamiyah Residents Oust Terrorists From Mosque, Help Uncover Weapons Cache (MNF release)

• Aug. 16: Sunni Insurgents vs. al Qaeda In Diyala

• Aug. 29: Cleric (al Sadr) Freezes Activities of His Militia

• Sept. 10: Iraqis wage 24-hour battle against al Qaeda, as U.S. soldiers assist

After three and a half years of maliciously undermining America and our soldiers, while simultaneously encouraging and emboldening our enemies --- and sometimes, even echoing their allegations --- some Democrats finally begin to acknowledge that the "surge," under the direction of Gen. Petraeus, is indeed showing significant results. Examples here, here, here, here, here, here.

By doing so, however, these Democrats incurred the wrath of the the seething, America-bashing, anti-war leftist groups, which threatened to target them in the 2008 elections, if they don't stop acknowledging our military's progress.

Sen. Reid (who began refusing to listen to Gen. Petraeus merely six weeks after he voted to confirm him (see March 8, 2007), and calling him a liar shortly thereafter) and other defeatist Democrats, however, continued to falsely insist that no progress is being made in Iraq.

Then, in concert with rabidly anti-war, America-bashing, subversive leftist groups, a large number of Democrats began plotting to slander Gen. Petraeus, before he could even give his September progress report, by claiming that the report is being written by President Bush, and is therefore invalid and full of lies. Turns out, the accusation itself was the lie: The very legislation that Reid & Co. wrote, and passed in May, mandated that President Bush give them a report on America's progress in Iraq. None of the MSM would expose or challenge the Democrats' continued lying and subversion --- and once again, enabled them to get away with this slander.

In the end, leading Democrats agreed that they were going to keep bashing Gen. Petraeus and our soldiers on the "surge" and the gains our soldiers were making. But to deflect any informed reporter or critic who pointed out the lies they were propagating, the Democrats developed a new, shameless strategy: they decided to move the goalpost: by arguing that there's no political progress being made in Iraq. Indications of this revised, shameful "strategy" are here.

Other articles on how the Democrats were subverting America and our military, and the price that we would pay if they succeed, are located here, here, here.

SEPT. 16: Washington Post --- "Fewer Foreigners Crossing Into Iraq From Syria to Fight"

SEPT. 18: Michael Totten, a blogger embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq... "Anbar Awakens: The Hell Is Over" (JQWorld: When are you going to see the MSM or the Democrats displaying pictures like these? Try, never. They wouldn't want to cause us to enter "a willful state of disbelief"*, to realize just how incredibly biased their accounts have been [*see Hillary Clinton quote, September 11, 2007])

SEPT. 18: "Empty Wards In Baghdad Hospital Offer Hope" Steep drop in victims of violence over last seven months leaves hospitals largely empty (JQWorld: Hm, could this have been due to the "surge" that the Democrats said was a "failure?")

August 25, 2007: Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch:
"Reducing troops in Iraq would be a giant step backwards"


August 31, 2007: Gen. Petraeus:
"We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress and we believe al-Qa'ida is off balance at the very least...
(T)he use of improvised explosive devices (the largest killer in Iraq)... has come down for about eight of the last 11 weeks to the lowest in at least a year, Iraq-wide.
(W)e see al-Qa'ida as public enemy No.1 because it is the enemy that carries out the most horrific attacks designed to re-ignite ethno-sectarain violence."

Sept. 5, 2007
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA):
“The facts are self-evident that the progress is not being made.”

Sept. 5, 2007
Sen. John Kerry, (D-MA):
(Editorial: "The Escalation Didn't Work") "The escalation failed to do the one and only thing it was supposed to do... No amount of parsing or spinning can change those simple facts: the escalation is and was the wrong answer... it all boils down to the same thing: these are more... 'successes' that don't lead to any resolution."

Sept 5, 2007
Sen. Charles Schumer, (D-NY):
"And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting." (See Note 14)

Sept. 6, 2007
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, (D-OH):
While on Syrian TV, Kucinich blasts Bush administration, claims American troops are engaged in "illegal occupation of Iraq." (video here)

Sept. 8, 2007
Osama bin Laden (new video)
(Excerpts) Calls U.S. policies in Iraq "morally reprehensible," which have produced "fear, destruction, killing, famine, illness, and vagrancy," and created a civil war that America "can no longer control."
Claims President Bush is "lying to the American people."
"There are more than one million orphans in Baghdad alone, and hundreds of thousands of widows... The American's [own] statistics... [reveal] that more than 650,000 people have been killed in Iraq as a result of the war and its consequences."
Bin Laden then goes on to castigate Democratic Party for not forcing U.S. soldiers to withdraw, denounces American capitalism as immoral, and claim that the electoral system and political parties are ruled by big corporations.
(See Note 15)

Sept. 8, 2007
A Democratic Senator who spoke on the condition of anonymity:
“No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV. The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.” (See Note 16)


Sept. 9, 2007
Sen. Joe Biden, (D-DE):
"(Gen. Petraeus's unreleased report) is flat, plain wrong... (T)his president has no plan how to win and/or how to leave... (President Bush is) putting American troops into the middle of a civil war to maintain the status quo... that is unconscionable, and he's wrong. This is the president's war... (U)nless we get 67 votes to override his veto, there's nothing we can do to stop this war."


Sept 9, 2007
John Edwards:
(After suggesting last week that the United States was less safe now than before the 2001 attacks, because the administration had allowed Iraq to distract it from the pursuit of Osama bin Laden). "Today, terrorism is worse in Iraq, and it's worse around the world... (I)t means the results are in on George Bush's so-called global war on terror and it's not just a failure, it's a double-edged failure."

Sept. 10, 2007, Gen. Petraeus's presentation to Congress
Demonstrates the significant progress that our military has been making in Iraq

September 11, 2007
Sen. Hillary Clinton, (D-NY):
(To Gen. Petraeus): "You have been made the de facto spokesmen for what many of us believe to be a failed policy. Despite what I view is your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief." (See Note 17)

Sept. 12, 2007
Sen. Harry Reid, (D-NV):
President Bush's plan "is simply more of the same: to keep at least 130,000 troops — American troops — in the midst of an intractable civil war*."

Sept. 12, 2007
Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL):
"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war* is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year — now." (See Note 18)

Sept. 14, 2007
Iranian "supreme leader" Ayatollah Khamenei:
"A day will come that the current U.S. president and officials will be tried in an international supreme court for the catastrophes they caused in Iraq... (A)mericans will have to answer for why they don't end occupation of Iraq and why waves of terrorism and insurgency have overwhelmed the country. It will not be like this forever and some day they will be stopped as happened to Hitler, Saddam and certain other European leaders."
.
(JQWorld: Wow... who knew that Khamenei is a blogger at The Huffington Post, DailyKos and
DemocraticUnderground!?!? They make all the same predictions and accusations.)

Sept 19, 2007
Sen. Hillary Clinton, (D-NY):
"Vice President Cheney came up to see the Republicans yesterday. You can always tell when the Republicans are getting restless, because the Vice President’s motorcade pulls into the Capitol, and Darth Vader emerges."

Sept. 20, 2007
Ayman al Zawahiri, #2 of al Qaeda:
"What they claim to be the strongest power in the history of mankind is today being defeated in front of the Muslim vanguards of jihad six years after the two raids on New York and Washington... (T)he Crusaders have testified to their own defeat in Iraq at the hands of the mujahideen, who have taken the battle of Islam to the heart of the Islam world."

============================================


NOTES:

(1) Had Sen. Durbin read any intel briefings on the subject, he would have known that radical Islamists throughout the Middle East and beyond were already calling the American military "Nazis," "worse than Hitler." More here. Note that Durbin's statement --- and his refusal to apologize for it --- was immediately picked up by al Qaeda's favorite media source, al-Jazeera, and blasted throughout the Muslim world, as validation of the lies they'd already been taught to believe about America.

(2) In large part, the allegations of detainee torture at Guantanamo have been debunked, over and over again, and yet, the MSM simply refuses to cover or acknowledge the exonerating evidence --- such as the fact that detainees are given gourmet Islamic-compliant meals, brand new Korans, prayer rugs, superior healthcare, etc.

Somehow, Sen. Durbin forgot to mention this --- or the fact that according to numerous sources, militant Islamists are instructed by their commanders and clerics to make up stories of abuse if they are captured, because they know the Western media will automatically believe anything they say, while assuming the worst about the U.S. government, as was proven to be exactly the case, time after time. Via Sen. Durbin, and the blood-libel that the Western MSM has engaged in, U.S. soldiers have been murdered, and the militant Islamists they are fighting have become not only emboldened, but morally justified --- all based on distortions, if not outright lies.

Guantanamo is quite possibly the largest single propaganda victory that militant Islamists ever scored --- and helped to usher in, and galvanize the "leftist-Islamist convergence" (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here).

(3) Flash Forward: July 27, 2007: At least 30 released Guanatanamo detainess return to jihad, murdering or attempting to murder U.S. soldiers.

(4) Murtha's statements were made before the military investigation had even begun. As it turns out, all but one of the Marines in this incident were cleared of wrongdoing at trial, and several of thse Marines are now suing Murtha for defamation and slander. More instances of Murtha making unfounded accusations against the U.S. military and subverting national security here, here, here.
SEPT. 18, 2007 UPDATE: MORE Marines cleared; and Young America's Foundation spokesman Jason Mattera (a JQWorld Infidel He-Man Of The Week) confronts Murtha, asks him if he's ready to apologize (ht HotAir; their take here):

(5) The mainstream media refused to hold Pelosi to account for these false statements, amidst their love-fest with her being first female Speaker of the House. Instead, it provided her with only glowingly favorabe coverage --- just as they did in the leadup to the election.

(6) This was the first and last time the House Democratic leadership permitted Rep. Reyes to be interviewed on this matter. From this point on, they admonished all their members to march in lock-step behind the reckless, defeatist strategy he decried in this statement.

(7) Flashback 1: March 16, 2003 --- days before the invasion, which Clinton voted for: "There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade."

(8) Flashback 2: October 10, 2002, Clinton voted to authorize U.S. to use military force to disarm Iraq: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

(9) Flashback: October 10, 2002: "I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

(10) Not according to the U.S. Constitution that Murtha swore an oath to uphold, it isn't; here and here.

(11) The 9/11 jihadists were here in America 3 years before the U.S. mlitary stepped foot into Iraq. But let's not quibble... after all, we've been told by the MSM for years that Murtha is a "distinguished" politician, who "means well..."

(12) Despite the blatant constitutional lie he told Matt Lauer, Obama is on the record as saying, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means, unlike the president, I actually respect the Constitution."

(13) The U.S. military has never deliberately bombed civilians in Afghanistan, and any honest, informed Senator knows this. Civilians have been killed by accident, or when high-value Islamist murderers were gathered around and/or hiding among them, and our forces judged that the opportunity could not pass to take them out. Also, it should be noted that the Afghanistani Islamists and Taliban are notorious for fabricating atrocity stories deliberately for consumption by the Western news media, which typically eats it up without any investigation or critical analysis - as is shown here. Furthermore, as has been the case for the past year, the MSM has been attemting to cover for Obama, but in this case it was caught, once again, here, here, here. Also, see bin Laden's Sept. 8, 2007 video, in which he echoes some of these same allegations.

(14) Quite possibly the most shameless, slanderous lie that Schumer ever told. He attempted to rob our soldiers of the hard-fought credit for what they accomplished in Anbar Province. IBD exposes the truth behind Schumer's propaganda, here.

(15) From personal observation, there's only two places I know of where bin Laden's exact list of lies, accusations and distortions are screeched on a regular basis: (a) At rabid leftist blogsites, including The Huffington Post, DailyKos, and DemocraticUnderground, etc. - and (b) At gatherings of seething anti-American, jihadist-appeasing/endorsing activist groups, including socialists, communists, anarchists, MoveOn.org, Intl. ANSWER, etc. But on a more limited basis, check out the statements in the following days by Democrats.

(16) Surprise!!! That's exactly what the seething, America-bashing, jihadist-appeasing, leftist anti-war groups did; analysis here, here, here, here. But this was done with absolutely no knowledge or consent or encouragement of top Democrats, of course...; after all, they are all patriots and "support our troops"...

(17) Wow. Is there a "chutzpah" award that we can bestow upon Hillary? "Hey, how'd those 900 secret FBI files on political opponents get in here? Who hired Craig Livingstone? Who could have known Bill was cheating, and may have been a serial sexual assaulter? Hey, how'd those Rose Law Firm billing records mysteriously show up on top of table in private residence of White House, after 2-year-search? Who knows how she turned $1,000 into $100,000 in a single day on cattle futures? Secret healthcare 'task force,' anyone? Bueller?"
"Willful suspension of disbelief," indeed. And on September 11, no less.

(18) Where's the last place you heard references to our soldiers being in the midst of an unwinnable "civil war?" Hint: Scroll up, right margin --- Osama bin Laden, September 8. Pure coincidence, I'm sure. After all, the "constitutional scholar" and "supporter of our troops" surely couldn't be echoing a jihadist's appraisal of our soldiers' situation... could he?

Original content is © Copyright 2007 by JonQuixoteWorld.blogspot.com. Email to jonquix@hotmail.com

.