The Vietnam War Template is the left’s political weapon of choice. It is also an utter disgrace. (The word treasonous comes to mind.) HotAir reports that John Kerry has uttered what he dared not utter during his aborted candidacy.

Incredible but unsurprising. He is after all an “internationalist” who cynically used the Vietnam war as a platform and tool to gain power. Have these people no shame at all?!@#$%

At HotAir: Video: Kerry says Iraq is worse than Vietnam

I’ve embedded the YouTube video below as well. Here’s exactly what he says in the video:

“I think Iraq is worse than Vietnam. And the reason it’s worse, is that, it– it– came about as a war of choice not the extension of the major… ah, ideological effort like the cold war. And I think that the deception and– and– the inadequecies of the leadership have been far greater in the long run.”

[flash http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OCzvs6RXig]

Coming on the heels of the Reid Sedition it starts to look like a co-ordinated effort. An offensive seemingly co-ordinated with foreign enemies of the United States.

Reid: Baghdad Troops “Out of Touch” with Gritty Reality of War

…It turns out you can learn far more about how the war is going by just picking up an American newspaper than by walking the streets of, say, Baghdad for four months.

Reid seemed most provoked by an article in yesterday’s edition of USA Today, which quoted the general as saying that he sees “astonishing signs of normalcy” in the Iraqi capital. ~villainouscompany.com

Perhaps Ann Coulter had it right after all:

treason, noun

1. Willful violation of allegiance to one’s country: sedition, seditiousness, traitorousness. See trust/distrust.
2. Willful betrayal of fidelity, confidence, or trust: perfidy, treacherousness, treachery. See trust/distrust. ~answers.com

Q: What kind of American would view the adoption of, “a more pro-American,” outlook by Al Jazeera as essentially ‘going over to the enemy?’

Yea, it’s a trick question because such a view would be anti-American by definition. Nevertheless, this view is held by many who believe that the War on Terror itself is a Goebbels-like propaganda ploy.

Is Al Jazeera about to Become Al-Foxeera?

Sources inside Al Jazeera confirm that there is an internal struggle underway that may dilute Al Jazeera’s independence and steer it in a more pro-western, pro-US direction. ~alternet.org

To the left, Fox News is the ‘Goebbels’ News Network, not to be trusted and dangerous to even listen to. (Apparently it might poison the liberal mind with the truth.) Therefore the idea of Al Jazeera becoming more pro-western and pro-US — i.e. more like Fox News – is a catastrophe. Inherent in such a liberal declaration are several telling admissions about what they believe:

• Pro-American is not good
• Pro-American journalism is not good
• Liberals are liberal first, Americans second
• Media that is not liberal is ‘biased’ and needs to be actively opposed or shut down
• A pro-jihad Al Jazeera is much preferred to a pro-American one

The left loaths the Fox News Channel for daring to depart from the Left-wing Main Stream Media bias that they have come to expect and enjoy. This bias is a handicap that they feel entitled to and helps to explain the vitriolic response when there are any dissenting voices from their own.

But the question is why does the left only support the, “voices of dissent,” if they oppose the U.S.? Indeed, “dissent,” and, “independence,” is honorable even when it is supporting the views of Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism, but Fox News? A heinous pack of lies and distortions that must be eradicated at all costs.

Doesn’t it seem odd that Democrats have no problem being photographed with terrorist dictators but refuse to attend a political debate on Fox News. We are told we must “understand” the enemy and not fuel the fires of conflict– except when the ‘enemy’ are American conservatives.

“We wanted to send a clear message to voters, the media and the presidential candidates that Fox is part of the right-wing smear machine, not a legitimate source of news,” said MoveOn civic communications director Adam Green. ~washingtonpost.com

In other words, opposing terrorism with a ‘War On Terror’ only creates more terror but opposing the Right somehow won’t create more conservatives but will lead to their defeat?

Democrat John Edwards Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a “global war on terror,” calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists. ~abcnews.go.com

So is the left’s opposition to conservatives merely a slogan designed only for politics, or do they actually believe that America and George Bush are the true problem?

“It is now clear that George Bush’s misnamed ‘War on Terror’ has backfired — and is now part of the problem,” Edwards told the Council of Foreign Relations in New York. “The War on Terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It’s a bumper sticker, not a plan.” ~foxnews.com

Relief at the freeing of the British sailors and Marines in Iran is tempered with dismay at the humiliation to which they and the country they serve have been subjected. ~telegraph.co.uk

While I agree with this UK Telegraph op-ed that the Royal Navy should have been able to NOT manage to get captured, I disagree with the bent perception that Ahmadinejad comes out ahead through all this. It just smacks of the dreaded liberal/PC mind disease. Wherein the west is always judged more harshly than our enemies. Bush deposes a dictator by force intending to give the formerly oppressed people of Iraq a democracy under which they can practice self determination and be a free people with all the rights and liberties of free governments and he is called a devil, a dictator, an idiot, a failure, you name it… While dictators who actually practice genocide and torture are deemed to have some virtue no matter what they do.

This is a form of anti-americanism or anti-westernism. My belief it is that the Soviets nurtured this meme throughout the cold war as part of their psyops and propaganda war against the west in order to weaken us from within. Now we are left with liberals who continue to do the job they unwittingly were induced to do by Global Communism. Bam!

Despite having done the world a great service Bush is demeaned and Ahmadinejad is lauded for working to build nukes with which to annihilate the jews. It’s a topsy-turvy world out there when liberal thought runs rampant.

Ah, here’s another story on the subject…

How Blair Botched the Iran Hostage CrisisHint: Take a look at Iraq.

Now Nancy Pelosi has taken up the mantle of Secretary of State and decided that the terrorist state of Syria is to be her first State visit.

Right Truth has a rundown of Nancy’s trip and just some of it’s immediate repurcussions.

Terrorists have already endorsed and applauded Pelosi’s visit.

One terror leader, Khaled Al-Batch, a militant and spokesman for Islamic Jihad, expressed hope Pelosi would continue winning elections, explaining the House speaker’s Damascus visit demonstrated she understands the Middle East. ~wnd.com

Terrorist leaders are expressing profound admiration of Pelosi’s knowledge and her party’s strategies for “peace”:

“Nancy Pelosi understands the area (Middle East) well, more than Bush and Dr. (Condoleeza) Rice,” said Al-Batch, speaking to WND from Gaza. “If the Democrats want to make negotiations with Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah, this means the Democratic Party understands well what happens in this area and I think Pelosi will succeed. … I hope she wins the next elections.”

Islamic Jihad has carried out scores of shootings and rocket attacks, and, together with the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group, has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past two years.

Ramadan Shallah, overall chief of Islamic Jihad, lives in Syria, as does Hamas chieftain Khaled Meshaal. Israel has accused the Syrian-based Hamas and Islamic Jihad leadership of ordering militants in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to carry out terror attacks.

Al-Batch expressed hope Pelosi and the Democratic Party will pressure Bush to create dialogue with Syria and Middle East “resistance movements” and prompt an American withdrawal from Iraq.

“Bush and Dr. Rice made so many mistakes in the Middle East. Just look at Palestinian clashes and Iraq. But I think some changes are happening for the Bush administration’s foreign policy because of the hand of Nancy Pelosi. I think the Democratic Party can do things the best. … Pelosi is going down a good road by this policy of dialogue,” he said.

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas’ military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the willingness by some lawmakers to talk with Syria “is proof of the importance of the resistance against the U.S.” ~wnd.com

Maybe I’ve been wrong all these years about Democrats and the left. Maybe they are better at dealing with the war on terror. In fact, in the short time they’ve been in power they may have already ended the war on terror! Yes, it’s true! Hard to believe I know, but perhaps I’ve been wrong– Democrats know just what to do to win the war on terror… deny it’s existence.

The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”

The “global war on terror,” a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the “long war,” which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years. ~militarytimes.com

Unfortunately, the forces of democracy in Syria do not seem to understand the great contribution to peace that Pelosi has wrought here. Apparently they are still under the illusion that Democracy would be good for the region and that liberalization of the muslim world would be a good thing. Perhaps… after the reform Party of Syria has had a chance to oppress the population and kill many thousands through terror attacks and financing, then, and only then, might Mrs. Pelosi deign to visit them and bring her enlightenment (and alignment) to them.

Assad could not have been happier because Syrian women, seeing a US official confirming what their husbands, the Imams in the Mosques tell them, and the society at large imposes on them through peer pressure will see in her wearing a Hijab as a confirmation of the societal pressures they are constantly under. No one will ever know how many women took the Hijab on after seeing Pelosi wearing it. The damage Speaker Pelosi is causing with her visit to Syria will be felt for many years to come. ~reformsyria.org

This AP story leads with it’s normal editorial paragraph:

WASHINGTON – With his go-it-alone approach on Iraq, President Bush is flouting Congress and the public, so angering lawmakers that some consider impeachment an option over his war policy, a senator from Bush’s own party said Sunday.   ~news.yahoo.com

The one thing I take away from this article more than anything else is that Sen. Hagel has utterly destroyed any chance he ever had of getting a nomination for President in the GOP.

GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska, a member of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush’s impeachment. But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.

“Any president who says, I don’t care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don’t care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed — if a president really believes that, then there are — what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that,” said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run.   ~news.yahoo.com

These are the folks that Democrats insist we surrender to:

“We saw a vehicle with two children in the back seat come up to one of our checkpoints, get stopped by our folks, the children in the back seat lowered suspicion, we let it move through,” he said. “They parked the vehicle, the adults ran out and detonated with the children in the back.” ~voanews.com

These must be the freedom fighters that Michael Moore praises and John Murtha opines has “broken” the back of our Army? Please. There is no excuse for the treason that Democrats have clearly chosen as political strategy.

Even as the surge succeeds Democrats continue to plot and plan for our total defeat and retreat from Iraq. Defeat is their preferred solution– in contrast to victory:

The Iraq Surge: Why it’s working
Iraqi Tribes Battle al-Qaeda. 39 Terrorists Killed
Many of Baghdad’s squares are becoming green and clean

Defeatism is the Democrats stock in trade these days. It’s time to ask all Americans which is more important victory or defeat? If defeat is America’s choice then Democrats are in fact riding a new wave of popularity. If, on the other hand, Americans prefer victory, then they are better off supporting the mission and the troops.

Staying the course means staying determined to win. Something we cannot say is supported by the left or Democrats in congress. One does not win wars by shrinking from danger or dwelling on every pothole and stumble as if it were the entire war. One cannot listen to those who intend your defeat as if they were telling you the truth. Democrats know this and yet they continue to spin lies and lobby for surrender.

Democrats call President Bush a liar, incompetent, and even a rogue commander. They warn that the war in Iraq is immoral, dangerously counterproductive and among the worst foreign policy blunders in history.

Yet as leaders in Congress struggle to find a way to end the war, they remain reluctant to force Bush’s hand by cutting off funds, capping troop levels or requiring explicit congressional approval for an escalation of troops.

At least five bills were introduced last week that would either restrict Bush’s ability to add troops or set a deadline for their withdrawal. No hearings or votes have been scheduled on the legislation. ~sfgate.com

Democrats express policy is to, “slow-bleed,” the troops in Iraq so that Bush is forced to surrender. They have no desire to effect their own policy of appeasement and surrender. It is the defeat of Bush which is paramount. It is the elevation of political victory over domestic enemies which trumps all other priorities. Something unprecedented in the history of our nation.

We, as a people, must choose. When faced with a struggle against perfidious enemies, who use children as cannon fodder, do we fold like a cheap card table when faced with even the lightest resistance (from enemies who cannot even face us equally on a field of battle)? Or do we see the job finished, seeking the establishment of governments that will give the middle east a measure of peace and justice rather than of tyranny and oppression?

I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this Government: ‘I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.’ We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

~Speech in the House of Commons, after taking office as Prime Minister (13 May 1940)

E.J. Dionne Jr. articulates, in this article, how Democrats have acheived their well fought propaganda victory.

But those who spent the past four years hyping threats, underestimating costs, ignoring rational warnings, painting unrealistic futures and savaging their opponents have been discredited. This awakening is the first step toward rebuilding our country’s influence and power. ~washingtonpost.com

Dionne characterizes the neo-con agenda as one which is built on lies, political manuevering, hubris, and incompetence– and by extension the political opponents of this, “botched war,” have been proven to be highly principled and honored to be correct and true.

On the contrary, this botched war is far more likely to lead to what might properly be called the Post-Bush Awakening. It is an awakening to the danger of viewing critics as traitors, to the costs of making everything about politics and to the sad tendency of establishmentarians to seek refuge within the boundaries of prevailing opinion. ~washingtonpost.com

From my perspective it has been the left and Democrats who began by calling Bush and the neo-cons as traitors, who make every single issue about politics, and who seek refuge in prevailing opinion.

The proof that this is true should be apparent to even the dimmest political observer. It was Democrats who voted for the war when support was far beyond majority. It was Democrats who cravenly gave their rubber stamp to the invasion even as they planned to undermine it.

The Rockefeller Memo outlines clearly how Democrats planned to call Bush a liar even as they repeated the claims of the Clinton Administration about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Is this the ‘Morning in America’ that Dionne is talking about? Treason and betrayal? Political manuevering and opportunism?

It basically echoes the same old tired argument from the left that conservatives are, “dividing America,” by continuing to have their own views and political outlook. It is the equivalent of blaming all disagreement on the failure of Bush to be a Democrat. My way or the highway is a Democratic position.

Democrats and the left have succeeded in defeating Bush’s policies in the Main Stream Media. They have won the propaganda war. But it is the kind of victory won in the service of lies and propaganda. Like Saddam’s Information Minister, Al Sahaf, who declared the American’s defeated even as they decimated Iraqi forces and disintegrated Saddam’s defences, Democrats know how to declare that we are defeated and disgraced in order to secure their own political victory. But at what cost?

Cindy Sheehan’s grassroots.

This one all but gushes… and I’m almost positive that they are misrepresenting, or even lying– I had no idea that Code Pink was made up of, “thousands of christians.”

Weekend Edition Saturday, March 17, 2007 · Thousands of Christians opposed to the war in Iraq gathered at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., Friday night to pray and protest U.S. involvement in the Middle Eastern country.

Tuesday is the fourth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. ~npr.org

Think about it.

Then there’s this story about ‘counter-protestors’ (i.e. man bites dog story) which you might think would get a little more attention because of it’s infrequency:

Counter Demonstrators Support Iraq Policy

Listen to this story… by Allison Keyes

All Things Considered, March 17, 2007 · While thousands marched in Washington against the Iraq war, a counter demonstration was also held in Washington on Saturday to show support for American policy in Iraq.  ~npr.org

Why bother writing the story at all? Why even bring it up? Nothing to see here. Move along.

From USAToday… it’s a re-mix for the Democrat, “slow-bleeding the troops strategy.” Something they can all get behind and support.

Democratic senators, from left, Charles Schumer, Evan Bayh, Harry Reid, Russ Feingold and Patty Murray announced last week a resolution calling for the full withdrawal of combat forces by March 21, 2008.

Deprive troops of reinforcements, supplies, funding… yeah this is how Democrats, “support the troops.”

WASHINGTON- Congressional Democrats are stepping up their effort to curb the U.S. involvement in Iraq, offering measures in both the House and Senate to limit President Bush’s ability to send more troops to the battlefield.

Thursday, the House Appropriations Committee will debate a measure that would prohibit the Pentagon from extending tours of duty for troops in Iraq and from sending any into the country without required training and rest in the USA.

…Democrats aim to attach it to a funding bill that is vital for continuation of the war.  ~usatoday.com

The article also mentions that Democrats consider depriving troops of equipment, training, and reinforcements, as, “tough-love,” meant to harm the President. How nice.