Bush lied, we must surrender.

“Bush deceived us.” These three words condemn Democrats and the left, by their own arguments, as either too dumb or too dishonest to be in power. Indeed, now that surrender is the official Democratic position on the Iraq war we can be thankful that they are not in power. Still, the left and their allies in the media are trying their best to push the Vietnam War template of surrender and humiliation to the detriment of American Security and the war on terror.

All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free -- free from a United States occupation, and I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process. My experience in a guerrilla war says that until you find out where they are, until the public is willing to tell you where the insurgent is, you're not going to win this war, and Vietnam was the same way. If you have an operation -- a military operation and you tell the Sunnis because the families are in jeopardy, they -- or you tell the Iraqis, then they are going to tell the insurgents, because they're worried about their families.

My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq. Rep. Murtha, as quoted in People's Weekly World

With all due respect to Rep. Murtha, he is fully and totally wrong. Declaring surrender will not make US troops safer, and in fact, in the long run it will put them and us at more risk of terrorist attack. His speech is filled with all the false premises of the far-left, including the tired personal attacks and questioning of the Bush Administration's patriotism. Calling the White House a bunch of chickenhawks is about as low as it gets.

Q: The president and the vice president are both saying it is now irresponsible for Democrats to criticize the war and to criticize the intelligence going into the war because everybody was looking at the same intelligence.

REP. MURTHA: I like guys who've never been there to criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there, and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what need(s) to be done. I resent the fact on Veterans Day he criticized Democrats for criticizing them. Rep. Murtha, as quoted in People's Weekly World

What should we think of a party that disdains the liberation of 50 million people from under a fascist regime by saying, "The main reason for going to war has been discredited," and by saying that, "our troops are the enemy," as if it were the people of Iraq who view our troops as the enemy and only our retreat will placate their anger. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Democrats are launching an all out attack on the truth and the Republican party has so far been slow to respond. I hope that they wake up now.

The left needs to stop lying and stop dividing this country. They need to stand up and be truthful about what the intelligence actually was rather than trying to manipulate the truth about the intelligence. The intelligence about WMD predates Bush and Democrats not only made some of that intelligence they believed it despite the fact that Bush was President not because of it.

KERRY: I believed that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles, and I believed Saddam Hussein wanted to get more weapons. But I also believed that, as did many of my colleagues, that the intelligent way to try to deal with that was to do the inspections. cnn, November 17th 2005.

No kidding. But you voted for the war anyway.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller said that 9/11 changed our understanding of how we calculate threats from rogue powers who have proven that they want WMD for nefarious reasons.

ROCKEFELLER: I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th that question is increasingly outdated. foxnews sunday

No one could have possibly exaggerated the intelligence beyond what Richard Clark himself had stated was already known about Saddam and Osama Bin Laden:

In case you don’t remember, “Boogie to Baghdad” is the phrase that Richard Clarke, when he was the top White House counterterrorism official during the Clinton administration, used to express his fear that if American forces pushed Osama bin Laden too hard at his hideout in Afghanistan, bin Laden might move to Iraq, where he could stay in the protection of Saddam Hussein.

Clarke’s opinion was based on intelligence indicating a number of contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq, including word that Saddam had offered bin Laden safe haven.

It’s all laid out in the Sept. 11 commission report. “Boogie to Baghdad” is on Page 134.TheHill

Bush lied, people died

So to recap, the reason we must surrender immediately is because Bush lied? Or is it that we are 'losing'? Or is it just that there is an enemy? An enemy that is not the Iraqi people, by the way.

Is it just me or does the left always seem to see America as the enemy and Al Qaeda as hapless victims of our Imperialism? Where does this kind of policy lead us in the war on terror? Do we really need to walk down the self-chosen Vietnam War path of defeat?

Posted by Eric Simonson at November 18, 2005 9:26 PM