Choosing to wage war on George W. Bush instead of terrorists, liberals now oppose anything good for America. They hate the fact that we won the war in Iraq without the thousands of casualties or the international outrage they predicted. Liberals were wrong on virtually every argument they had against the war. The Arab uprising, environmental disasters and unraveling of world peace they warned of never happened.
In March, Penn State liberals showed their patriotism (redefined by liberals as dissent during wartime) with letters to the Daily Collegian asserting, "We are the terrorists. We are the ones bombing houses and hospitals ..." and "... truly we are the greatest threat to world peace ever devised."
Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-New York, demonstrated his sheer grasp of the facts during the war. Accusing the U.S. military of terrorist-like tactics he said, "I just don't believe that you bomb women and children ..." One week after traitors like former U.N. weapons inspector and proven child-porn solicitor Scott Ritter claimed America was stuck in a "quagmire," Baghdad fell with little resistance from the dying Iraqi regime.
In the wake one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history, 25 million Iraqis had been liberated from a brutal dictator. Nearly 60 mass graves have been uncovered, rape rooms have seen their last days of use, Saddam's weapons no longer pose a threat to the world. And yet liberals are still searching for the justification for war. With their pre-war stances heavily reliant on American failure, liberals set themselves up for the mad scramble in which they now find themselves. In an attempt to shade the undisputed success of a war they vehemently oppose, Democrats have now resorted to a strategy of outrageous lies and conspiracy theories.
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and CNN military analyst, entered the Democratic presidential race last week. One day after announcing his candidacy, Clark told reporters that he "probably" would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing war in Iraq. The next day, Clark told a reporter, "Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war." Clark's flip-flop on his support for the war is a minor example of a larger problem he has. This past June on NBC's Meet the Press, Clark told reporters that intelligence linking Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda had been hyped. When host Tim Russert pressed Clark for information, he continued, "It came from the White House," he said. "I got a call on 9/11 -- I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You've got to say this is connected ... This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' " As if on the most chaotic day in recent American history, the White House would actually contact a cable news analyst for last-minute pointers. Clark later retreated on this wild claim admitting that, "No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam to September 11." Next he claimed that a friend at a Muslim think-tank in Canada urged him to make the Saddam-al Qaeda link. While Clark dishonestly smears Bush, Iraqis widely thank the president for his steadfastness in ensuring their freedom.
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., recently unleashed a barrage of attacks on the president. Describing a war justified by a U.N. resolution threatening serious consequences if Saddam did not disarm and fought using the same reasons that Bill Clinton used to launch Democrat-supported 1998 strikes against Iraq, he said, "There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas... This whole thing was a fraud." On CNN's Inside Politics the senator continued with outright lies. "The administration's had an initial tie between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein; they rejected that. They said we were in an imminent threat of being attacked by nuclear war; that has not worked out. They said we are going there because of weapons of mass destruction; that isn't so."
Interestingly, Kennedy believed the exact opposite one year ago. On September 27, 2002, Kennedy said the following, "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."
The question remains, as Rush Limbaugh asked, what did Ted Kennedy know then that he doesn't know now?
In the interest of truth, it must be revealed that President Bush never said Saddam was linked with al Qaeda and never said there was an imminent threat of nuclear war. The entire basis of a pre-emptive war was to disarm Saddam before he became an imminent threat
With their political power dwindling, Democrats have gone to such lengths to discredit the president that they contradict themselves, invent bogus theories and, worst of all, undermine the very mission of this country's war on terror. After numerous Democrats warned of the threat Saddam posed before the Clinton attacks on Iraq and as recently as last year, their repeated insistence that the president somehow invented this war is transparently political and borderline traitorous. History will view liberals as divisive, power-hungry crooks in what should be a united struggle against evil. Terrorists have declared war on all Americans yet liberals' prime enemy sleeps not in desert hideouts, but in the White House.
