A couple of good reads: a column at Front Page Magazine and an entry at the excellent NewsBusters blog. Both hit on the unprecedented attack of deception by leaders of the Left.
The Democratic Party in the U.S. now attacks a war they supported and then turned against when it became politically expedient.
Liberals here in Canada did the same, only worse: even in the face of attacks on America and the West, and with Canada as one of the named targets, and all the intelligence evidence, they demanded we be pacifists, that we not join the U.S., and they began to advance the now defining strategy of the liberal-left in Canada: the strategy of “letting the Americans do it for us because we’re too weak”, the “we have no spine stratagem”, the “crossing our fingers”, and the ever astute “come what may” policy. Oh and the “…but we support the troops” mantra. The liberals of Canada have dug in still progressively deeper since the Afghanistan and Iraq wars started, largely because they are leaderless pantywaists without guiding principles or the ability to take our own side in a war. I believe this is one of their “Canadian Values”. I think it makes us an “honest broker”, or something.
1. This column at FrontPageMag.com is part of book (“Party of Defeat”) about the lies told by the Left in their effort to rewrite history and win power by deception.
As the authors David Horowitz and Ben Johnson (the column below is by Johnson) points out, in a democracy like that of the U.S.A., criticism of war policy is legitimate and necessary. But the deliberate undermining of a war policy and the war’s outcome is a different matter.
The liberal-left in Canada should take notice. (They won’t.)
The Party of Defeat’s Top Five Lies About Iraq
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, June 10, 2008FROM THE BEGINNING, THE WAR HAS BEEN BASED ON LIES, DECEPTION, AND PROPAGANDA: the war against President Bush, that is. Beginning five years ago next month, the Party of Defeat‘s attempts to discredit the commander-in-chief in the midst of a war have continued without quarter, undeterred by factual refutation, rational discourse, measurable progress in Iraq, or palpable damage to the morale of American soldiers in a very hostile part of the world. The Left’s campaign against the very war many of its banner-wavers voted to authorize has been built upon a tissues of lies layered upon one another, big and small, consequential and unspeakably petty, political and military, and aimed at the war’s rationale and prosecution—and those implementing both.
Of the scores of such fabrications, it would be difficult to quantify the most damaging or widely held. However, here is in an attempt at recounting some of the most commonly parroted lies of the antiwar echo chamber.
[… 4-minute read …]
2. The Media Research Center’s NewsBusters.org blog has a one that fits with the above:
‘Bush Lied’ Argument Doesn’t Match Facts—Democrats Say
By Tim Graham | June 9, 2008 – 07:41 ETWashington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt will no doubt upset liberal bloggers with his Monday column underscoring something the rest of the national media elite hasn’t exactly underscored: that the “Bush lied, people died” line doesn’t match what Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee found and some media outlets forwarded. For instance, on Thursday’s NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams announced:
In a long-awaited report, the Senate Intelligence Committee today concluded that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials exaggerated and misrepresented the intelligence about Saddam Hussein and his possible connections to al Qaeda in making the case for war in Iraq. Most of the Republicans on the committee notably and sharply disagreed with some of the report’s findings.
But Hiatt pointed out:
There’s no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.
But dive into [Sen. Jay] Rockefeller’s report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
[…1-minute read…]
PTBC was founded by Mr. Johannesen in 2000.
Contact Mr. Johannesen about this article using this form. Please refer to article's title.
FOLLOW @JoelJohannesen ON X!
- State-Funding of Sports Boondoggles Need To Be Sent To The Penalty Box - Wednesday March 13, 2024 at 4:44 pm
- I’m from the government and I’m here to help you become barely mediocre like us. - Tuesday March 5, 2024 at 11:53 am
- Big-Ass Government makes Big-Ass Blunder - Friday March 1, 2024 at 12:36 pm
