I am pushing the limits of fair use, but this is just too good to hack up too much.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57609

From the halls of Malibu tto the shores of Kennedy

Democrats claim Gen. David Petraeus’ report to Congress on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their response wasn’t.

Democrats yearn for America to be defeated on the battlefield and oppose any use of the military – except when they ccan find individual malcontents in the military willing to denounce the war aand call for a humiliating retreat.

It’s been the same naysaying from these people since before we even  invaded Iraq – despite the fact that their representatives in Congress voted in favor of that war.

Mark Bowden, author of “Black Hawk Down,” warned Americans in the Aug. 330, 2002, Los Angeles Times of 60,000 to 100,000 dead American troops if we invaded Iraq – comparing an Iraq war to Vietnam and a Russian battlee in Chechnya.

…

On Sept. 14, 2002, the New York Times’ Frank Rich warned of another al-Qaida attack in the U.S. if we invaded Iraq, noting that since “major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we’ve been distracted soon enough.”

This week makes it six years since a major al-Qaida attack. I guess we weren’t distracted. But it looks like al-Qaida has been.

…

But liberals soon began raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a failure because we hadn’t captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that “the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.”

…

Next, liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn’t captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid. Then they said the war was a failure because … you get the picture.

They said the first Iraqi election, scheduled for January 2005, wouldn’t happen because there was no “security.”

Noted Middle East peace and security expert Jimmy Carter told NBC’s “Today” show in September 2004 that he was confident the elections would not take place. “I personally do not believe they’re going to be ready for the election in January … because there’s no security there,” he said.

At the first presidential debate in September 2004, Sen. John Kerry used his closing statement to criticize the scheduled Iraqi elections, saying: “They can’t have an election right now. The president’s not getting the job done.”

And then, as scheduled, in January 2005, millions of citizens in a country that has never had a free election risked their lives to cast ballots in a free democratic election. They’ve voted twice more since then.

…

OK, they knew what Petraeus was going to say. But we knew what the Democrats were going to say. If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they’re really stupid.

Doh!

Trackback URI | Comments RSS