America Is Winning in Iraq, and Treasonous Democrats Are Losing

At a press conference on Friday Harry Reid called General Petraeus a liar.

REID: He’s made a number of statements over the…years that have not proven to be factual. I have every belief that this good man, General Petraeus, will give us, uh, what he feels, uh, is the right thing to do in this report that is now not his report, it’s — it’s President Bush’s report.

We’re dealing with treason here. We’re literally dealing with a Democrat Party aligned with its kook fund raisers and supporters to ensure defeat, to attack a man they all voted to confirm.

They cannot join us, nor the military, in victory. They have to now tar and feather Harry Reid as a great military expert and strategist? Same thing with everybody involved there. Who are they? What recommends Dianne Feinstein. Same thing with Dick Durbin. Who are these people? On the basis of what is their assessment accepted over the experts? The left relies on “experts” all the time, and their “experts” are always wrong, from measuring the economy, to other things.

Dick Durbin, the Center for National Policy.

DURBIN: By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and the surge is working. Even if the figures are right, the conclusion’s wrong.

Really? This is the way Evan Thomas of Newsweek analyzed the Duke Lacrosse rape case. Well, he said, yeah, “the narrative” was right, but the facts were not. What do you mean the facts may be right but the conclusion is wrong? The figures are right but the conclusion is wrong? Dick Durbin: “manipulating the statistics,” “the Bush-Petraeus report.”

August 8th, 2007, CNN‘s American Morning, the host said to Senator Durbin:

“These two scholars from Brookings, they were in Iraq recently. They wrote an editorial in the New York Times. They said, ‘Yes, there’s progress. The progress is significant enough that US troops should stay on the ground at least ’til the beginning of 2008.’ Do you see any progress that they were talking about, Senator Durbin?”

DURBIN: As we are seeing military progress, the political scene is very discouraging. We have seen this Maliki government which was once branded a government of national unity coming party.

HOST: But hold on. Let me back you up there. You said you did see military progress?

DURBIN: Well, what we find is that the surge has troops going into areas where for four and a half years we have not seen our military in action —

HOST: Uh-huh.

DURBIN: — and, naturally, they are routing out the Al-Qaeda in those areas. That’s a good thing. But there is no evidence of the government of Iraq in these areas. There are no Iraqi policemen, no Iraqi soldiers.

HOST: I understand all of that, but, Senator Durbin, everybody in the Democratic Party is saying that the surge has failed.

Practically a month ago, just a little over a month ago, Durbin went on television and said it’s working! Friday, he comes out and says that Petraeus is a liar, “manipulating the statistics.” Let’s not forget who Dick Durbin is. Here is a portion of his remarks on the floor of the Senate from June 14th, 2005.

DURBIN 2005: If I read this to you and didn’t 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 happened by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime, Pol Pot or others, that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that’s not the case. This was the action of Americans in treatment of their own prisoners.

John Kerry, on the floor of the Senate where he decided he had to agree with Senator Schumer about the war.

KERRY: It’s really important that people in quick visits to Iraq don’t get, uh, sidetracked by what’s really at stake here. Anbar province is Sunni violence, eh, by Al-Qaeda against — it was originally Al-Qaeda, and — and — and the Sunni sheiks decided they were tired of seeing their daughters raped and their sons beheaded and violence in their villages, so they took advantage of this moment, and they’ve decided to cooperate with us in order to protect Sunni within their pruh — essentially Sunni province.

Now let’s go to Schumer the floor of the Senate, the thing that got everybody all worked up, because you just heard John Kerry essentially agree with him.

SCHUMER: Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from Al-Qaeda said to these tribes, “We have to fight Al-Qaeda ourselves.” It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here.

Well, isn’t this just great? So we got Kerry and we’ve got Schumer on the same side: that is defeat, the American military is incompetent.

Senator Biden, also on Petraeus, saying that he is dead wrong. The surge didn’t work, on Meet the Press.

Tim Russert: “General Petraeus said in a letter to his troops that we have not had the political reconciliation we thought we would have at this time. It’s been much slower, but there is some hope. And then he added this: ‘My sense is that we have achieved tactical momentum and wrested the initiative from our enemies in a number of areas of Iraq. We are, in short, a long way from the goal line, but we do have the ball and we are driving down the field.’ Is that what you expect him to say tomorrow?”

BIDEN: I think he’s dead, flat, wrong. The fact of the matter is that there is — that this idea of the security gains that we’ve made have had no impact on the underlying sectarian dynamic. None! None! Whatsoever.

All right. Look, I’m sure that you are as enraged as I am, so let’s turn the tables here a little bit, folks.

Did Joe Biden ever serve in the military? Why, then, does his word trump that of General Petraeus, even before General Petraeus has testified? Calling a man a liar before he even testifies under oath, that’s extreme. Did Dianne Feinstein ever serve in the military? Why, then, does her word mean more than General Petraeus’s? Exactly which active service commanders are advising the Democrats? Not the discredited retired, who said nothing before 9/11, and who said nothing when Clinton was slashing the military. Where do the Democrats go for their expertise?

I want to know.

I really want to know what military people they’re talking to. Clinton generals Since their assertions are being treated as fact, and their assertions are being used to undermine a report that has yet to be released, who are their experts?

Where are the investigative journalists on this? Where are the reporters trying to find out just what the hell is motivating and paying for this action of the Democrat Party? These are citizen legislators. They are not military experts. They may know how to get elected to office, but they don’t know how to fight a war, and that, my friends, I can assure you of.

They haven’t the slightest idea how to fight one, nor how to win one.

They can sit there and say that Petraeus is a Bush puppet. Well, they’re nothing more than puppets, these Democrats. They huddle with MoveOn.org; they huddle with Daily Kaos and the other hard-left anti-war activists. Why isn’t this repeated in the Media?

Why is their interest in the number of meetings and phone conferences that go on between the Democrat leadership and these groups not reported? Why is it not reported, folks? Why isn’t there any kind of interest in George Soros, as there was in Richard Scaife? It’s not enough here to say that the media are liberal, by the way, folks.

We know that. We know they’re rooting for the Democrats, and they’re rooting for defeat. We know all of that. But we have to demand some facts here. We have to demand an honest debate.

This is the most shameful moment in my life as an American. To watch the descent of a once-great party fall into basically an ally with enemies of this country and have elected officials carry that agenda in front of decent, honest men, proclaim them as liars before they even testify up on Capitol Hill.

Who’s going to question Joe Biden?

Who’s going to question Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin, and all the other liberal Democrats about their positions on Iraq over the last 12 months?

They have been all over the board. Some of them are saying the surge is working and then they come back and say Petraeus is a liar. Who in the world is going to point out to them that they sought to derail the surge, which has been working?

Who is going to make them pay?

 

Who is going to hold them accountable for their investment of defeat?

 

Who is going to point out to them that they sought to slow-bleed the military over the last several months by their efforts to deny them funding?

 

Who is going to point out that they’ve done their best to destroy the morale of the US military over the same time frame?

 

Who is going to point out to them that they have used media appearance after media appearance to smear the troops?

 

They have sought to demoralize the military and the public. Who’s going to point out to them, that their beloved Bill Clinton — it’s taken years just to rebuild it in the middle of a war?

 

Who is going to point out to them that they plotted before the release of this report to have other reports issued in hopes of watering down whatever Petraeus has to say?

 

And who’s going to point out to them that they have no plan for winning in Iraq or winning the war on terrorism? And how they have so undermined the military during eight light years of his presidency.

Well, I’m doing it…

“Why do you want to lose?”

“Why are you actively seeking the defeat of your country in the war on terror?”

We get to demand answers from them as well. Nobody is demanding answers from them. It’s about time somebody did.