After months of heated rhetoric slamming President Bush's Iraq policy, the Senate's top Democrat moved into new terrain by declaring the Iraq war a worse blunder than Vietnam.
There is your lie, now let us look at reality.
Where exactly is Iraq worse than Vietnam? In what way? As this graph shows, it certainly isn't in our military's deaths.
We have been in Iraq for four years now.
The U.S., in particular, deployed large numbers of military personnel to South Vietnam between 1954 and 1973. U.S. military advisors first became involved in Vietnam as early as 1950, when they began to assist French colonial forces. In 1956, these advisors assumed full responsibility for training the Army of the Republic of Vietnam or ARVN. Large numbers of American combat troops began to arrive in 1965. The last American troops left the country on April 30, 1975.
Ok, so we also haven't been in Iraq anywhere near as long as we were in Vietnam.....so what the hell is Harry Reid talking about?
Lies. Harry Reids only weapon because the truth is not convenient for him.
Moving right along we come to one of the most widely used lies the Democratic party, liberals and many of my liberal commenters here try to portray.
Now, a quick disclaimer here. The politicians are telling the lies, but the liberal commenters hold the same responsibility because they "choose" to believe and perpetuate those lies without bothering to ask the questions that would show this lie for what it is.
The lie? The "majority" of people spoke in November and their message was to get out of Iraq.
That is the most common lie the Democrats feed their base, because they understand that their base does not care if they are being lied to as long as the lies match thier ideology.
Oooops? "Reality" shows that Iraq was number four on the list of reasons that the exit surveys showed for the way Novemeber votes went and in addition to that only 37% gave Iraq as a reason, which if you are capable of basic addition, 37% is not a "majority"opinion.
Another common lie the Democratic party feeds its base is that the new strategy being implemented has been tried before and failed.
They completely ignore, and hope that their base is too stupid to think for themselves and will listen to them and they themselves will ignore, the key elements of the new strategy which have never been tried.
The ignore the change in the rules of engagement, they ignore that we now are using counterinsurgency tactics and they ignore the Iraqi's standing up and fighting for themsleves with our help.
Take a look at the linked phrase above and see for yourself the key elements that the Democrats continue to ignore and believe if THEY ignore it, we will also.
On the political front, another lie that is being perpetuated throughout the MSM, is one I pointed to yesterday....
The lie? That Republicans in the Senate were "blocking debate" on Iraq.
First of all, it is Harry Reid, again, that is trying to force a vote of Cloture and considering how many outclicks I have seen via site meter on the word Cloture, it seems that Harry Reid is once again, counting on the fact that the American people do not understand nor care what the word Cloture means.
I will show you again.
clo·ture [kloh-cher] Pronunciation Key - verb, -tured, -tur·ing. U.S. Parliamentary Procedure
–noun
1. a method of closing a debate and causing an immediate vote to be taken on the question.
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object)
2. to close (a debate) by cloture.
Reality is that Harry Reid is trying to stop the debate because he does not want a full debate on Iraq, he wants a a partial debate on only one resolution.
The reason Reid is scared of a full debate on all resolutions....I showed you that yesterday also: The Gregg Resolution.
One resolution is terrifying for the Democratic party in the Senate and the house... it was written by Judd Gregg and the text is:Expressing the sense of the Congress that no funds should be cut off or reduced for American troops in the field which would result in undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned missions.
In the Senate of the United States
Concurrent Resolution
Expressing the sense of the Congress that no funds should be cut off or reduced for American troops in the field which would result in undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned missions.
Whereas under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, the President is the "commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States", and in such capacity the president has the command of the Armed Forces, including the authority to deploy troops and direct military campaigns during wartime;
Whereas under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States, Congress has the power of the purse specifically as it relates to the Armed Forces, and in such capacity Congress has the responsibility to fully and adequately provide funding for United States military forces, especially when they are at war and are defending the Nation; and
Whereas when United States military forces are in harm's way and are protecting our country, Congress and the Nation should give them all the support they need on order to maintain their safety and accomplish their assigned missions, including the equipment logistics, and funding necessary to ensure their safety and effectiveness, and such support is the responsibility of both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of Government: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.
Let me remind Harry Reid of his own words here:Reid vowed that Democrats will find other ways to oppose the president's policies. "You can run, but you can't hide," he said. "We are going to debate Iraq."
So, Mr. Reid, why aren't you debating Iraq? Why are you running AND hiding from the Gregg Resolution? What are you so scared of? You, Sir, are a liar because it is none other than YOU that is stopping a full debate on Iraq.
Because the Gregg resolution is the only one that has full bipartisan support with enough votes to successfully pass and Harry Reid knows this...hence his terror about allowing a full debate on Iraq and his insistence that there only be a partial debate..... doesn't the American people want a complete debate?
I ask again, do we want a full debate or don't we?
Condi Rice had some "Remarks to U.S. Mission Personnel in Iraq."
A few of her comments were notable:
And I'll tell you something else about the American people. I keep hearing and reading the American people don't want to fight this war anymore. I don't think that's right. The American people want to know that we can succeed. Because they, too, want to succeed. And so we will have our discussions and our debates at home, but Americans want to win this war. They want to leave an Iraq that is better than the one they found. They want to leave an Iraq that is going to be a pillar of a stable Middle East. The President has put forward a new plan to help us do that. I'm energized, I'm ready to go, and I know that each and every one of you is ready to go, too.
This is another area that the Democratic party and the far left liberals lie about on a regular basis....they claim the "majority" of American people think that Iraq is not important in our success on the war on terror.
I guess these liberals and Democrats should speak for themselves because they certainly aren't speaking for the "majority" as they claim to be.
As the graph above shows, 66% think Us victory in Iraq is very or somewhat important as of February 7th, 2007, which is up from the poll taken one month before.
Even more shocking is that 53% of Democrats that were polled said it was important.... THAT is the Democratic majority....so maybe those ignorant cusses should stop claiming to be speaking for the "majority of Americans" when they cannot even speak for the "majority of Democrats."
Now for one of the biggest lies about Iraq is the one where the Democratic party and the far left liberal liars keep repeating.
The lie? That George Bush lied about Saddam Hussein and Weapons of Mass Destruction.
A trip through history here will show that George Bush was not the only one that believed this, in fact the intelligence was handed down to him from former administrations.
Out little trip though history will show what other politicians (Democrats) had to say before we inavded Iraq, and before George Bush was even president.
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb. 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D,CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
We also take a look at what the Democratic party had to say about this issue after George Bush was elected and after 9/11.
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue at a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec . 5, 2001
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27,2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“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.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10,2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23. 2003
Well , well, well.... The lies being told today are being told by politicians that hope we are forgetful and too stupid to look the "facts" up for ourselves huh?
Notice most the names there, from Teddy boy Kennedy to Hillary Clinton, those that tell the biggest lies now are the ones that encouraged our actions against Saddam Hussein.
Hillary's words are especially telling:
“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.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10,2002
Gave aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qaeda.
This brings us to yet another huge lie we continue to hear from the left.
The lie? That WMD's were the only reason we invaded Iraq.
The reality?
Bush gave a nationally televised speech at 8:30 p.m. [CNN, 9/12/01, White House, 9/11/01], speaking for about five minutes. [US News, 9/14/01] In what would later be called the Bush Doctrine, he stated, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” [Washington Post, 1/27/02]
As Hillary pointed out in October of 2002, Saddam Hussein did, indeed sponsor terror by giving aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists and in her own words, to al-Qeada terrorists.
One has to wonder a couple of things here.
Do the Democratic politicians think their base is soooo stupid that they will allow them to lie and try to rewrite history?
The second question is, are they right in assuming that?
So far, they seem to be.
.
