Issues analysis

Guy Adams
Dir., ValuesUSA

When I hear the Democrats say they'll limit funding for our troops and seek to set a date for withdrawal, I just get sick. We need to fight like our lives depend on it -- and they very well might. The vote came down to party lines, and that is shameful. Shameful because the Democrats put party above principle. Their hatred of George Bush has blinded their better nature.

George Washington wrote to some leaders in 1776: "When the civil and military powers cooperate, and afford mutual aid to each other, there can be little doubt of things going well." Most modern Democrats sweep aside his example, to their detriment, along with the country's. They'd rather castigate and humiliate Bush and lose the war in Iraq, in order to further their own selfish political desires. In my view, such behavior is simply traitorous.

Note that this is not an inspirational article--it is an informational one. I have not seen a comprehensive listing of the liberal Democrats' hurtful anti-war or anti-Bush remarks, so I decided to create one. Hopefully, this will help you decide who not to vote for in the next Senatorial and Congressional elections, and possibly in the next Presidential election as well. So in a sense, this is a voter's guide for the future.

Shades of treason

Let me pose a question: are modern liberal Democrats patriotic? Most are, yes, but enough of the leading ones are not. Let me explain.

This is no longer the party of FDR or JFK. I will cite examples to back up my claim--but they are so numerous, I can't possibly list them in one article. Nevertheless, you've undoubtedly heard many vitriolic remarks by leading Democrats on TV or radio, or read about them in newspapers and websites over the last few years--how could you miss their overly acerbic, and frequently untrue, remarks? It's time to call such behavior what it really is: treason--that is, aiding and abetting the enemy. I will cite many illustrations and let you judge. Speaking as they are speaking now, their anti-American rhetoric would have been considered treasonous in earlier times.

There is no way that any American who loves their country could come to any other conclusion after listening to Democratic leaders claim they support our troops, then hearing them constantly harangue their Commander in Chief and disparage or undercut the mission of our troops--in public, no less. In some cases, no comment by me is necessary--again, you be the judge.

How do you ask someone to be the last soldier to die for what some proclaim to be a "mistake" or a "lie"? Yet that is what the Democrats are unfairly asking of our troops. In view of their flagrant departure from patriotism, let me name just a few of those who have aided, abetted, and encouraged the enemy--in effect, in my judgment, committed treason...

Pantheon of traitors--vote them out of office!

I originally listed Joseph Biden, but he's recently tempered his remarks in some sensible ways. Some think that he might actually be for America, despite his modern Democratic persuasions--I hope so, but time will tell.

Most thankfully, the ever-subversive Tom Daschle was voted out of office because the decent citizens of South Dakota had apparently had enough. "My message is that the presidency of George Bush is essentially over," Daschle said. "They are self-destructing and careening from failure to failure." I have not been in favor of every decision the president has made regarding Iraq, but in a time of war we need to support our president, not ridicule the commander-in-chief in front of our enemies and the entire world. Even a child can see that.

To their credit, Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller have courageously broken ranks and dissented from this liberal treachery. Lieberman, with whom I have frequently disagreed, I can still call him a true patriot, and he deserves our respect and encouragement. As far as citizen Benedict Arnolds are concerned, let's not forget Michael Moore and George Soros.

I'm hesitant to mention Cindy Sheehan because she has lost a dear son in service to his country. Out of respect to his service, I will not say more about her other than to say that she's gone too far. To Cindy I say: I pray that God comforts you in your time of great personal loss. We should pray for her as well as all the families who have lost loved ones in the service of their great country.

Aiding and abetting

In a column that I wrote during the last presidential election season, I criticized John Kerry, but said, "I do not doubt his patriotism." I was wrong. Kerry recently said, without proof, "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, you know--women." He out and out said that our troops are abusing Iraqi citizens! There is no way you can tell me that John Kerry loves his country. Maybe at one time he did, but not now. I don't believe it anymore than I'd believe that Aldrich Ames or Jonathan Pollard loves theirs. Their actions proved it and Kerry's remarks prove it, as well. Hugh Hewitt says of Kerry "The forgery is John Kerry and John Kerry is the forgery."

Kerry also incredibly said, "The day after the [Iraqi] election, the president of the United States should announce to the Iraqis.... I am withdrawing the 20,000 additional troops...." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 12/4/05). How shortsighted. Never give the enemy your timetable for anything.

Once a Democrat, President Ronald Reagan said a long time ago that "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." It's now much worse than that. Modern Democrats have left you and me, America at large, and moreover they have left and abandoned our troops. The Democrats' overly harmful remarks have contributed to the deaths of many troops in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan. Because of their hate and contempt for President Bush, their extremely careless remarks have emboldened and encouraged the insurgents operating against our troops. In my opinion, the deaths of some very brave Americans must therefore be laid at their doorsteps. It's cause and effect. It's that simple.

On a San Antonio radio station, Democratic Chairman Howard Dean angrily ranted that "The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong." When Democrats make such incredibly careless remarks in public, they are encouraging attacks on our troops. Let's not minimize the deadly consequences of his words by letting them go unchallenged. Dean also said "[Our troops] don't belong [in Iraq]." (CNN's "American Morning," 12/8/05). He also amazingly said "They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway." We would have never publicly said such a divisive thing in WWII. It only encourages the enemy, and this costs American lives.

Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass) astonishingly said that "[This] is a battle we are not winning" and called it "Bush's Vietnam." He also said "This whole thing was a fraud." Imagine the parents of a dear American soldier thinking that their offspring died for a fraud? I'm sorry, Ted, but some of us feel compelled to ask, just what did Mary Joe Kopechne die for?

He also said, "War in Iraq was a war of choice, not a war of necessity. It was a product they were methodically rolling out. There was no imminent threat, no immediate national security imperative, and no compelling reason for war." In the same speech, he calls it a "wreckage of a war we never should have fought." How would you feel if you were a soldier putting your life on the line in Iraq for so-called "wreckage"? Columnist Peter Parisi calls Ted Kennedy "The Iraq war's Jane Fonda." I agree.

Kennedy also told reporters. "Because of the polls showing that Americans have lost trust in the president and believe he manipulated intelligence before the war, the president and vice president have abandoned any pretense of leading this country and have gone back on the campaign trail." No comment necessary--this man is plainly encouraging our enemies. Kennedy also said "The Administration's rationale for war was built on a quicksand of manipulated intelligence. We knew the military victory would be quick, but we had no effective plan to win the peace. In fact, the war in Iraq has made the war on terrorism harder, not easier, to win." This man has become anti-American. Vote him out of office.

On January 29, 2003, Kennedy said, "Circumstances have changed significantly since Congress approved that resolution [authorizing the Bush administration to wage war against Iraq] last October. In the months that have passed, events have only strengthened my belief that this is the wrong war at the wrong time." Strong words from a man who ran (or swam) away from his own trial-of-character at Chappaquiddick.

I know that my references to Mary Joe Kopechne and Chappaquiddick might seem overly harsh, and I don't suggest them lightly, but we're talking about life and death here--the lives of Americans lost to acts of terrorism, and the lives of our brave American soldiers--lives that Kennedy and other Democrats seem to ignore in their obsessive hatred of Bush. I just don't understand it.

Sniping

In a recent Washington Post article, John Edwards said "It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002.... First, we need to remove the image of an imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq... along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, [Bush] has made horrible mistakes at almost every step."

Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) said, "Iraq has been a colossal failure of American policy. From the beginning this administration has waged a campaign of misinformation and has continued to deliberately mislead the public and this Congress about the realities on the ground.... Support the troops by bringing them home." Prior to that, he said "They are intent on sending more troops to die for a shifting tale of pure fiction...." How this must affect the morale of our troops!

In one article, Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) said, "It was wrong to go in from the start and it is wrong to stay. And it is counterproductive to U.S., Iraqi, and regional interests, as Iraq heads closer to an all-out civil war.... U.S. presence in Iraq is only making the conflict worse.... The U.S. presence in Iraq is fueling the insurgency, and has turned Iraq into a training ground for the insurgents. The U.S. presence is strengthening tensions within Iraq. There is no better time to leave than now--before the situation worsens." She means "retreat."

Maxine Waters, Congresswoman from California, said this in an article regarding our entry into Iraq: "The fact is the administration's entire case for war was based on overstatements, misrepresentations, and deceit.... Iraq is descending into chaos.... It should now be clear to everyone that the President rushed into war totally unprepared to deal with the dangers and costs of imposing his will in Iraq.... It is a terrible tragedy that anyone had to die in a war that was never necessary." Never necessary? You just inappropriately said that all the troops who have died in service to their country in Iraq basically died for nothing. Words have consequences. A word is like a bullet--once fired, it cannot be recalled. Can you imagine the anguish of a mother or father who has lost a son or daughter in this war after hearing remarks like this?

California Congresswoman Barbara Lee claims she supports our troops--I saw numerous statements by her to that effect--yet she flip-flops and recently made these remarks: "The fact is that a majority of Americans and a growing number of Members of Congress believe that it was a mistake to invade Iraq. What's more, two-thirds of Americans now believe that it's time for U.S. to start bringing our troops home, and there is growing bipartisan support for that sentiment." She also said "The President needs to recognize that our troops have become the focal point of the insurgency and he should work to remove the targets from their backs." Well ma'am, it's a war, and troops are usually targeted in a war. In another statement, she stated "Perversely, our young women and men in uniform are getting killed every day to accomplish a mission that only their withdrawal can accomplish." That last remark hit the bottom of the barrel in my mind. Finally, she recently said "[T]he military occupation of Iraq is undermining our security and needs to end immediately."

Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) said, "There is no end in sight to the dire situation in Iraq.... We're asking the President to finally put forward a solution to end this unnecessary war." I can only imagine how a soldier sitting in a foxhole must feel upon hearing this remark. Hopefully he won't hear it.

Russell Feingold (D-WI) said about the President's strategy for Iraq: "[This] isn't a strategy for success in Iraq or for success in the fight against global terrorism." He said that we are "fueling the insurgency." Almost without equal, he actually said that "[O]ur military presence in Iraq is not consistent with that goal [of countering terrorism]--and that it is in fact undermining that goal." and "[W]e have created a breeding ground for terrorism in Iraq and that the indefinite presence of tens of thousands of U.S. troops is often fueling, not dampening, the insurgency in that country." Feingold's loose mouth is his own critic.

Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said, "There's a growing frustration, I think, on both sides of the aisle at how slowly the training of the Iraqi troops and police force is going." She also said, "There's no specific time frame, but I would say the withdrawal ought to start now, right after the elections, December 15th." Why not just hand over our military's plans for winning the war? Boxer disrespectfully said of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, "I personally believe that [her] loyalty to the mission [she was] given overwhelmed [her] respect for the truth." My word, is there no limit to the character assassination the Democrats will stoop to? Apparently not. Ma'am, you are the bane of the Democratic Party.

Christopher Dodd, US Senator from Connecticut, said, "A lot more needs to be done to get this right or you're going to continue to see an erosion of support here at home and abroad for these policies which have no end in sight." No end in sight? How this must discourage our troops and encourage our enemies. Just who's side are you on?

Dick Durbin (D-IL) said this of our Guantanamo Bay detention center, which is abiding by the Geneva Convention: "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." Like Feingold, Durbin's mouth is his own critic.

Columnist Les Kinsolving says this of Durbin's numerous anti-Bush, anti-war remarks: "Senator Durbin's remarks could very well make him the 'Hanoi Jane' of this conflict." No doubt about it, he's certainly well on his way to that shameful moniker. Durbin has described our operations at Guantanamo Bay as "...akin to something that happened by [sic] the Nazis, Soviets in their Gulags, or some madman regime like Pol Pot." How dare you, Sir?

Democrat and Minority Leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi said, "Let's be clear about what it is Mr. Murtha said, 'Yes, let's bring the troops home.'" Press conference, 11/30/05. She also said "I oppose it [the war in Iraq] because we have two events coming up: one, this election on December 15th, and then the Constitution." She said, "The president has dug us into a deep hole in Iraq; It Is time for him to stop digging." Madam, our brave troops found Saddam Hussein dug in a hole--just who's side are you on? Obviously not America's.

In another press release, Pelosi said, "Growing numbers of Iraqis and Americans recognize what President Bush will not: 'stay the course' is not a strategy for success in Iraq." Earlier she said, "The President went into Iraq under a false premise, without a plan, and has totally mismanaged our involvement. Now he is trying to justify his actions with a series of excuses." In June of 2005, she said "This war in Iraq is a grotesque mistake; it is not making America safer." She calls this "a war without accountability." Pelosi is almost without equal in how low she'll stoop to make the president look bad. In a time of war, that's inexcusable.

Unbelievably, Pelosi also said, "The President did not have a plan for victory when he went into his war of choice in Iraq, and he did not have a plan for victory today." How can she so amazingly transfer such confidence to our enemies? She also shamelessly said, "The 'Plan for Victory' backdrop against which the President appeared at the Naval Academy today was no more accurate than the 'Mission Accomplished' backdrop he used over two and a half years ago on the USS Abraham Lincoln." The enemy needs such imagery to sustain their emotionally-based recruiting, but why provide it for them?

New York Democrat Charles Rangel complained that the Bush administration's decision to wage a "fraudulent war" in Iraq was as bad as "the Holocaust." "It's the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country," Rangel thoughtlessly told WWRL Radio's Steve Malzberg. "This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn't their ox that was being gored." Really? You think this is just as bad as the Holocaust? You disgrace yourself in front of the entire Jewish race and the world.

Rangel calls the Iraq war "a fraudulent war of choice." That must really encourage our troops over there. Then, undermining the sacrifices made by our troops, he said, "The majority of the American people lost faith months ago and no longer believe the invasion of Iraq was worth the cost." The lives lost by patriotic young Americans were worthless?

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, from Nevada, said in a recent senate floor speech that Bush has "shamelessly decided to play politics" over Iraq. "We need a commander in chief, not a campaigner in chief," and "We need leadership from the White House, not more whitewashing of the very serious issues confronting us in Iraq." What happened to logic? What happened to solidarity for the sake of our country?

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark (what a disappointment) said, "There's a tendency to want to say, 'Cut your losses.'" Somewhere along the line, a patriot lost his moral compass. He sold out.

Richard Gephardt (D-MO) voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq, yet he said, "The difficulty of coming to a unified position is that for a lot of people who voted for it, they have to decide whether they can admit that they were misled." At this point so far into the war, why energize the enemy by claiming that the President misled us? The "Bush lied" argument has no valid evidence whatsoever.

Senator Feinstein insinuates that the Bush Administration lied about Iraq. On her website she asks: "Did senior policymakers misinterpret, manipulate or misrepresent the analytic product of the Intelligence Community? Did senior Executive branch officials deliberately mislead the American people and the Congress?" She also states that "After months of dodging questions, giving half-answers, and ignoring Congressional requests, the time has come for this Administration to level with the Congress and the American people about Iraq." She added, "[A]fter the military operation [in Iraq] was over, we were immediately behind the 8-ball and we have been trying to catch up ever since.... [W]e were misled by this Administration in a series of speeches and comments about Iraq." It's simply more of the "Bush lied" nonsense.

I will not completely challenge Congressman John Murtha's overall patriotism--only his wisdom on the Iraq issue. I do hope that Congressman Murtha's recent outbursts are merely a result of his frustration over the situation in Iraq and are not his new and lasting point of view. Murtha recently said, "Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency--[and] are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence." He also said. "It's time to bring them home." Of course we're a target--we're at war! Encouraging the insurgency to pile on the pressure, even indirectly, is simply not wise. He also said Bush's Iraq strategy is "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion--it's time to bring the troops home." Murtha recently called our war in Iraq an "Occupation." He also implied that 'We [Americans] are the reason for all the problems over there.' Rep. Murtha has gone from hero to heckler.

In an effort to popularize her extreme left-wing views, Hillary Clinton has begun to covertly blur her position on the war on terror in Iraq in a carefully crafted attempt to make her seem like a moderate. In truth, she's as liberal as they come. In a letter to her constituents, she backed away from her support of the war, saying "I voted for it on the basis of the evidence presented by the [Bush] Administration, assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections, and the argument that the resolution was needed because Saddam Hussein never did anything to comply with his obligations that he was not forced to do. Their assurances turned out to be empty ones." In a time of great national crisis, she can only call the efforts of the administration "empty." A vote for Hillary is a vote against America.

Senator Barack Obama [D-IL] incompetently said as he contemplates his presidential potential: "The Democratic Party was unlikely to reconcile its differences and reach a unified strategy for Iraq...." (Jeff Zeleny and Rick Pearson, "Obama: Iraq War Splits Democrats," Chicago Tribune, 12/6/05). Obama also disturbingly said, "The politics and the policy of this may not match perfectly." Unlike your previous positions, Senator, take a stand on the behalf of We the People, whom you have so far deceived. (Example, Obama claimed to be against abortion, but supported bills for partial-birth abortion. See Illinois SB's 1661, 1662, 1663 & HB 382.) It's time to come clean, Sir.

A matter of reason

Should we have gone into Iraq?

Probably, but the verdict is still out on that. Is the fact that we have so far not found weapons of mass destruction the all-important issue?

As a law enforcement officer, I look at it like this: Suppose I'm called to a house where the owner called to say that he strongly suspects that a burglar is in the basement. I arrive and find that either there is no burglar, or more likely, that the burglar has left before I got there. Nevertheless, once in the house, I find out that the husband has been severely beating his wife. Should I leave because the original reason for my entry proved elusive by the time I got there? Certainly not, but that is what the Democrats are leading you to believe. In my mind then, their integrity and character are strongly suspect.

On the flip side of the Democrat's treacherous and dangerous rhetoric, President Bush inspirationally said: