US Navy Seaman Nathaniel Leoncio - Someone You Should Know
Protect Afghan Kids This Winter

Pushback- I was for the war before I was against it

I have a feeling that all the defeat-mongering and anti-war posturing of the left may finally have come home to roost. For a couple of years our entire effort in Iraq has been misrepresented and a truly inaccurate view of why we went, what we have accomplished, and how this will all turn out has prevailed. The doom and gloom brigades of the activist left and their communications allies in the media have created an artificial world where Sadaam was no threat, Bush lied about intel (and everything else), we have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, and the quagmire is dragging us down Vietnam-like. The problem is, none of those things are true and the media monopoly that once prevented the good news from getting out has been LT Smashed, Greyhawked and drunken into a stupor by Matty O' Blackfive. Add Michael Yon, best war reporter on earth, and far too many others to mention and the truth will out. Now finally the White House remembered they don't have to take it either as W spoke out on Veterans Day:

"And our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision."

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."

True dat! I think one of the more devastating takedowns of this whole revisionist joke is right on the Republican's website. It's a video showing the same folks now howling about the President misleading and deceiving the country, their own naive selves included, into war talking earnestly about the grave danger Sadaam posed and their support for his removal before he could do harm to us. These people had access to the same intel the President used  in his decision-making and came to the same conclusion as W. Sadaam had WMD before and used them on his people and the Iranians, and he had certainly not complied with UN resolutions not just to disarm, but to prove he had disarmed. Given that situation these current day members of the "Bush Lied" coalition were bellicose in their calls for regime change.

"Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs."

Well now that is curious, if the intel wasn't manipulated at the CIA due to Dick Cheney's machinations, when was it "fixed"? That is kinda tough to reconcile, no evidence of any "fixing" so both Dems and the administration used the same info and came to the same conclusion, then they voted on this and overwhelmingly said, we can't afford the risk. He had 'em, he keeps acting like he's hiding 'em, we gotta' go get 'em. The fact that when we get there they were gone, either destroyed or quite possibly in Syria, doesn't change the rationale one bit. We chose to remove him because rolling the dice and hoping he had changed his ways seemed a little dim after 9/11.

"They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."

Any possibility of a known threat like Hussein having WMD was untenable for us and as importantly it was an act "Pour encourageur les autres" a  French legionaire expression "To encourage the others" that put all other tyrants, petty and otherwise, on notice. Step over the line and you could be the next contestant on American Whack-a-Mole. Hussein represented the guy you saw shoot someone and then run down a dark alley. You approach and tell him to throw down the gun, and he says he already did, but it is nowhere to be seen. He keeps one hand behind his back while reassuring you he is no threat. You can leave and hope he did chuck the gun and will now lead a life of peace, or you can act responsibly and after exhausting peaceful persuasion, take a forceful look see. If he did throw the gun, he can still stand trial for shooting the first guy, and rightfully so. It was his obligation to prove his peaceful intentions, as it was Hussein's to prove he had complied with the UN resolutions and the ceasefire terms from Desert Storm.

"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory."

I have discussed Patriotism & Dissent before and this has nothing to do with good faith opposition to this war or in fact war period. It is aimed squarely at those politically-motivated Democrats attempting to obscure their conscientious actions prior to the war now that their rabid left wing demands anti-war fealty. The only cover they can find for an about face on principle is to claim they were lied to. I mean this is the default meme for the left anyhow and Bush's Lies explain all the ills of our world, but when the truth is your own face on TV with your actual support for the war coming from your cakehole, it's got to be tough to keep a straight face. Why do I feel like Karl Rove is sitting in his office giggling his ass off? This is a perfectly self-inflicted wound offering the now-aggrieved President the right to remind the American people what lies really look like. Several years of relentless pressure from the left, amplified by the media have given far too many people the mistaken notion that our case against Iraq was not valid and truthful. Now as the Dems scurry in fear of being tagged by the MoveDeanOn crowd as insufficiently anti-war, they focus the light on the facts about why we went to war, and those flatter the President and his steadfast principles much more than the Dems and their blowin' in the wind political opportunism. American's hate politicians and nothing shows why more than flip-flopping on an issue of principle.

Makes you wonder if GOP head Ken Mehlman may have just taken the mantle from Rove as evil genius, no wonder Howard Dean is scared to appear on TV with him.