It is an irony (or a result, perhaps, of a disgustingly perverse political strategy) that 40 of the 45 Democrats in the Senate chose the week when we traditionally pay homage to our brave veterans to demand a timetable for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. The measure was defeated 58 to 40, but an amended version, setting 2006 as a “period of significant transition creating conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq,” passed overwhelmingly, 79-19. The message to our troops is clear: No matter where we stand in the war on terror, we’re pulling out in 2006.

 Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s terrorist organization immediately claimed victory and exhorted his followers to “hold on.” Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader, could hardly contain his glee over the Senate vote. His cut-and-run mentality was clear in his statement, “Democrats and Republicans acknowledged that staying the course is not the way to go. This is a vote of no confidence on the Bush-administration policy in Iraq.”

Americans in uniform—both at home and abroad—were stunned. Colonel Oliver North writes that without exception, the military personnel he has met with have expressed their anger and frustration with statements like, “We’ve fought well.” “We’re helping to create a democracy.” And, “Don’t they want us to win?” It is an outrage that our military personnel should EVER have to ask such a question.

Former president Clinton delivered his own arrogant pronouncement to a university audience in Dubai. Despite the fact that the Clinton administration had advocated the overthrow of Saddam in 1998, Clinton stated to his student audience during Veterans Week that the Iraq war was a “big mistake.” Clinton, the draft-dodging, anti-military politico, must have relished the opportunity to take a huge swipe at the morale of our troops in Iraq—and to whack the Bush administration at the same time.

Excuse for Cowardice

The Democrats have shamelessly been building their cowardly “flight plan” on the discredited premise that Bush manipulated intelligence and lied to the American people in order to get us into the war in Iraq.

It is so preposterous that one hesitates even to address it. Even a cursory examination of the public record demonstrates that it is not the president who is lying. But, as Suzanne Fields said so well in a recent column, "A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on."

We were glad to see President Bush finally “pull his boots on” with a speech on Veterans Day that reproached not just the liars but those who listen to them. The strongest statement in his speech, and one that captured the essence of this preposterous campaign by the Democrats and the Left said, "It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." Bush reminded those with failed memories that a bipartisan Senate investigation found that no pressure had been applied to alter the intelligence findings about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush reminded them again that a large majority of Democrats in Congress voted to give him authority to use force in Iraq. He reiterated what the international intelligence community believed prior to the war, and pointed again to the dozen-plus United Nations resolutions citing Saddam Hussein's possession and development of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction.

The political cowards in Congress—who believe that endless negotiations and UN resolutions would keep us safe from a vicious enemy with a murderous, global agenda—have neither the stomach nor the backbone for a tough and protracted fight. Their tactic is to devise an excuse (“Bush lied”) for their political cowardice. Obviously, they have not considered the ramifications (in just that area of the world alone) if we pull our forces out of Iraq before the work is done. A vicious amalgamation of assassins and terrorists will be only too eager to seize control of Iraq and wreak vengeance against the Iraqi people who welcomed the demise of Saddam’s regime. The resulting bloodbath would make the present carnage against Iraqis look tame.

As for the “Bush lied” propaganda from the Left—the bipartisan Robb/Silberman commission that investigated this claim reported that there was no evidence of any kind that pre-war intelligence was manipulated or distorted. It did note that the intelligence was flawed, but added, “These errors stem from poor tradecraft and poor management.” In other words, the CIA fouled up—big time. Is there any way to interpret the commission’s findings as “Bush lied”? No. So, who is lying?

The other argument that we hear almost daily from the Democrats is that Senate members did not have the same intelligence information as the President. The Robb-Silberman commission addressed that argument as well. They reported that the intelligence in the president’s daily briefing (PDB) was, if anything, more alarmist than that in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to which Senate members had access. Put briefly, we can conclude that if Congress had seen the exact same reports the president saw, it would only have strengthened the case for war among members of Congress.

Sequel to Vietnam?

Oliver North reports (“How to Lose a War—the Sequel,” TownHall.com, Nov. 18, 2005) that he has been documenting since October of 2001 our brave Americans fighting the war on terrorism—from Baghdad to ships in the Persian Gulf, to gunfights along the Tigris and Euphrates, and on to hospitals in Iraq, Germany and the U.S. where the injured are recuperating.

“Throughout,” Col. North says, “there has been a common bond among these ‘warriors of September 11’—a steadfast resolve that they could win the war. Now, for the first time since I accompanied the initial U.S. combat units heading into Kandahar, Afghanistan, I’m hearing something different—a loss of confidence in the final outcome. . . .[R]ecent reversals—not on the battlefield but in Washington—have caused nearly all of those I talked to[over last 10 days]to question whether we are suddenly in danger of losing the war they have been fighting.”

North makes clear this sudden loss of assurance has nothing to do with casualty figures, troop levels, or new acts of terror by a ruthless enemy. The question he is hearing is, “Do you think that they are going to pull us out before we’ve finished the mission?” and “Will we abandon Iraq like we abandoned Vietnam?” Not once, North says, has he been asked about pre-war intelligence.

No Time for Cowardice

The White House and the GOP need to get out front in this fight and pound home the message that leading Democrats were as convinced as the Bush administration that Saddam had WMDs. And, as Oliver North has stated, GOP leaders, senior administration officials and the president need to go to Iraq and talk to our troops and reassure them that we will stay there long enough to get the job done.

It is a great irony that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright—a prominent Democrat—gave voice in 1998 to what is true today, but her party now wants to sweep it under the rug: “What happens there [Iraq] matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” There were many other Democrats who gave clear and unmistakable public testimony before the war that they believed Saddam had WMDs and that he posed a significant threat that we would be compelled to deal with. We need to take the words right out of their mouths and broadcast them around the world

It’s time for common-sense Americans and Republicans to get up on their hind legs and demand that this treasonous political attack on the President, with its certain, destructive implications for our troops abroad, come to an end—now. If we do not, and if we allow the Democrats to undermine the morale of our troops and destroy our potential for victory in Iraq, we will have capitulated to a vicious enemy whose agenda for destruction is FAR broader than the battlefields in Iraq. And the message to jihadists around the world would be crystal clear: Just wait it out; the Americans lack the will to stay the course.

It is an outrage that many Democrats are willing to hand the terrorists a victory they could never achieve on the battlefield.

This is not a fight we can abandon. We did not choose it, and we must not lose it. Until our military commanders on the ground in Iraq are satisfied that the Iraqis are ready to assume primary defense activity throughout Iraq, we must not leave.

One last thing: Let’s be clear on what this current anti-war frenzy among Democrats in Washington is all about. A failed war in Iraq would destroy the presidency of George W. Bush. The people who are screaming “Bush lied” in order to discredit our efforts in Iraq do not care what damage they do to our national security. Their paramount objective is to destroy the presidency of George W. Bush—even if it means losing the war in Iraq and against radical Islamists around the world who are determined to destroy us. They have never recovered from their rage over the impeachment of Bill Clinton. They are determined to show the world that their political idol—Bill Clinton, proven liar, adulterer, and womanizer—is the moral equal of George W. Bush—whatever it costs this nation.