How Many Lies Have Democrats Told To Sabotage The War on Terror?

obama_pelosi[To order David Horowitz’s new book, “The Black Book of the American Left, Volume III: The Great Betrayal,” click here.]

Start with Obama’s claim that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or ISIS) is not Islamic. Say what? In fact, the so-called war on terror is clearly a war that Islamic jihadists have declared on us. Yet Obama is so hostile to this war that even the subterfuge “war on terror” was too much for him and he purged it from official government statements and replaced it with “Overseas Contingency Operations,” which describes nothing. Why would he do this? To avoid confronting the actual threat from what is obviously the most dynamic movement in Islam today: the jihadist war to purge the world of infidels and establish a global Islamic state. The same impulse to deny this threat can be seen in the Obama administration’s characterization of domestic acts of Islamic terror like the recent beheading in Oklahoma and the Fort Hood massacre as “workplace violence.”

The origin of the Democratic lies that fog the nature of the war against the Islamists and make us vulnerable to their attacks can be traced to the Democrats’ defection from the war in Iraq, the second front in the so-called “war on terror.” “Bush Lied People Died.” This was the disgusting charge with which progressives and Democrats sought successfully to demonize America’s commander-in-chief and demoralize the nation as it went to war to take down the terrorist-supporting monster regime of Saddam Hussein and eventually defeat Ansar-al-Islam and al-Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, Bush didn’t lie about the reasons for taking on the terrorist regime in Iraq, as the Democrats claimed. Democrats, including senators John Kerry and Diane Feinstein sat on the intelligence committees and had access to every piece of data about Saddam Hussein’s weapons and the reasons for going to war that George Bush did. If they had any doubts about these reasons all they had to do was pick up the phone to CIA director George Tenet – a Bill Clinton appointee – and ask him. The reprehensible claim that Bush lied was concocted by Democrats to justify their defection from a war they had just authorized betraying their country in time of war along with the young men and women they had sent into the battlefield.

The Democrats lied in claiming that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that therefore the war was unnecessary and therefore immoral. This was actually two lies in one. In the first place the decision to go to war wasn’t about Saddam’s possession of weapons of mass destruction. It was about his determination to build and use weapons of mass destruction and his violation of 17 Security Council resolutions designed to stop him from doing just that. Saddam violated all 17 of the UN resolutions, beginning with those that constituted the Gulf War Truce and culminating in the ultimatum to disclose and destroy all his weapons of mass destruction. His defiance of that ultimatum is why we went to war with him.

But it was the second lie – that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction – that the Democrats used to discredit the president and the war we were fighting. In fact, the Saddam regime did have weapons of mass destruction, including a chemical weapons storage plant recently discovered by ISIS along with 2200 rockets filled with deadly Sarin gas. Here’s the report from the Daily News of July 9, 2014:

“A terrorist group bent on turning Iraq into an Islamic state has seized a chemical weapons depot near Baghdad stockpiled with sarin-filled rockets left over from the Saddam Hussein era…. The site, about 35 miles southwest of Baghdad, was once operated by Saddam’s army and is believed to contain 2,500 degraded rockets filled with potentially deadly sarin and mustard gas.”

Not a single Democrat has apologized for the monstrous defamation campaign they conducted around this lie to cripple their president and their country in a time of war.

The Democrats began their sabotage campaign against the war in Iraq in June 2003, claiming that Bush lied when he cited a British report that Saddam was seeking fissionable uranium in Niger for his nuclear weapons program. Two official reports, one by the British and the other by the U.S. Senate confirmed that Bush’s statement was correct, but this was long after the Democrats had so demonized America’s commander-in-chief as a cynical and dangerous liar that his ability to mobilize American citizens to support the war against the Iraqi terrorists was severely damaged. No apologies from Democrats or the media, which abetted their lies, in this case either. Here is a recent testimony about the facts of Saddam’s quest for fissionable yellow cake uranium:

“As someone who led the company that transported 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium—enough to make fourteen Hiroshima-size bombs—from Saddam’s nuclear complex in the Iraq War’s notorious ‘Triangle of Death’ for air shipment out of the country, I know Baathist Iraq’s WMD potential existed.”

Not content with these lies, the Democrats reached into their Marxist pocket for another. The progressive slogan “No Blood For Oil” was a maliciously false claim designed to undermine the moral basis for the war by accusing President Bush of serving the interests of his Texas oil cronies beginning with Vice President Cheney, former president of Halliburton, instead of the American people. In the Democrats’ telling, evil corporations in the Republicans’ pocket pushed the country into a needless and “imperialist” war that cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives. But the fact is that despite spending trillions of dollars on a war that cost thousands of American lives, America got no oil out of the war in Iraq, which has wound up in the hands of ISIS terrorists and the People’s Republic of China. No apologies for this myth either.

Perhaps the most destructive lie that Democrats have used to sabotage the war against the Islamist fanatics is that fighting terrorists creates more of them. Nancy Pelosi actually told 60 Minutes’ Steve Croft that if America left Iraq the terrorists would leave too. The argument has been used by progressives to oppose a serious military effort to stop ISIS in Syria and Iraq rather than having to fight them here at home. But aggressive pre-emptive war against the terrorists in their homelands rather than ours has the opposite effect as the victory in Iraq showed before Obama undid it.

The six-year retreat of the Obama Administration from the battlefields in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and appeasement of the terrorist state of Iran, has created more terrorists than we have ever seen. The weakness displayed by the chief defender of freedom under the leadership of an anti-American president has been a provocation to terrorists. The terror threat diminished under Bush but has grown dramatically under Obama. That is because fighting terrorists does not produce them. ISIS is able to recruit thousands of new terrorists because Islamist radicals are inspired by what Osama bin Laden called “the strong horse,” by beheadings and the slaughter of Christians without a serious reprisal. This is the face of the evil that confronts us, and we better wake up to that threat before it is too late.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • JacksonPearson

    Problem is, Barack Hussein Obama II, is a pathetic, pathological, compulsive, and serial liar….:

  • dwayne roberson

    We must never forget what leftist politicians and leftist media did to undermine the dangerous work by our troops. A sick nostalgia for the Vietnam template for self induced defeat. I will Never Forget.

    • PhilByler

      You are 1000% correct.

    • Larry Larkin

      Don’t forget that they handed over Yugoslavia and China to the communists in the 1940s as well.

    • truebearing

      Self-induced defeat is theirstock and trade. They wanted North Vietnam to defeat us, and they want ISIS to defeat us. The Left is a collectively treasonous.

  • http://johnnyangeladvocacygroup.net JohnnyAngel Advocacy Group

    David Horowitz is correct. Arab peoples and in fact all peoples respect power and regard weakness as a sign of cowardice. Bargaining with Muslim fakirs is like bargaining with communists, a losing battle. All compromises should be in America’s interest and not HOPING the Russians & Islamists will react the way we wish they would. This is folly !! Yet, Obama & Kerry exhibit this form of “statesmanship” in every foreign policy blunder. Unless…..they are doing this for another more despicable reason ?

    • sundance69

      In answer to your question, I would put my money on the consorted effort of the path to the final destruction of Israel. What else could it be?

  • wildjew

    I think we can make a strong case that the Democrats are sabotaging the war against the global jihad — that they undermined and sabotaged the war in Iraq –without holding President George W. Bush up as an exemplar or an excellent model.

    I voted for President Bush in 2000. He told too many untruths about the ‘religion of peace’. Bush misled the American people about the religion of Barack Obama’s birth. Who would have known – listening to Bush’s reassuring words about Islam – that a Muslim born president with deep sympathies for the world of Islam would present a grave threat to this country.

    President Bush told too many untruths about our enemies and our friends (e.g., Israel). Fifteen of the nineteen September hijackers were Saudi nationals, the bin Laden family is Saudi, Saudi charities up to the highest levels of government finance al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda’s ideology (Wahhabism) is the official region of Saudi Arabia. You could say the September attacks were perpetrated by a Saudi proxy but you wouldn’t have known that in the weeks and months following the savage attacks in New York and Washington.

    Early October 2001 in keeping with a pledge he made to then Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah (late August 2001), President Bush unveiled his vision for a Palestinian-Muslim enemy state in Israel’s heartland.

    Bush wrote Abdullah: “I firmly believe the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination and to live peacefully and securely +++in their own state+++in their own homeland.”

    Not even Bill Clinton had publicly supported a Palestinian state…. (Elsa Walsh, The Prince)

    In the years following the September attacks, President Bush, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and other administration officials (like Barack Obama) maintained Israel is an illegitimate occupier of Muslim lands.

    Can’t we (Republicans) do better than this?

    • Moa

      Bill Clinton used NATO to bomb the Serbs (internationally recognized owners of the province of Kosovo) and hand the province over to the Muslim Albanian Kosovar jihadis.

      Bush was not perfect, but Clinton was much worse than Bush.

      Tick-tock tick-tock: it doesn’t matter whether you vote in D or R for President – you still get pro-jihadi policies, but at least the R’s pushback once in a while.

      • wildjew

        I think you are right.

    • William F

      Absolutely! Bush is only guilty of being naive and trusting these people

      • wildjew

        I don’t believe he is naive. I believe he knew he was misleading the country. If you believe he was and is that naive then you much also believe he was not fit to be president of the United States.

        • William F

          Very few people know the workings of Islam in this country. What is truly sad is they think it is like any other religion. No person can know everthing there is to know in this world and Bush is no exception. However there is no excuse for Obama. He is well versed in the Quran and it’s teachings. He use to be a Muslim and attended the Madras schools.

          • wildjew

            If I could get up to speed on the basics of Islam within months of the September attacks, why couldn’t the president of the United States? If I could find honest scholars on Islam why couldn’t president Bush? If I intuited the 9/11/2001 attacks were Islam in action, why didn’t Bush? Didn’t you? You say there is no excuse for Obama but isn’t Obama doing what we should expect him to do given his birth and his background in Islam? Why would anyone think Obama wants to be excused for furthering the supremacist, imperial aims of Islam?

    • William James Ward

      It is disheartening that our leadership has cowered before
      the Islamist regime in Saudi Arabia and Islamists who wish
      us dead. There is no giving in to these murderers but Bush
      limited the war on terror to protect Oil interests that he
      feared would be destroyed and cause worse economic
      turmoil. Bush was wrong and should have flattened
      the Saudis and all that had any part in 9/11. Israel is the
      true owners of Abrahams lands given by God, the Bible
      is explicit and the faux Palestinians are a farce and
      will be a cause of the wars of the end of days…………..William

  • ata777

    with regard to Iraq, Democrats were as despicable as Horowitz described them–but Bush let them get away with it.

    • Patriot077

      Rove didn’t want to make an issue of it. He’s a globalist too.

      • johnnywood

        Rove is a fool.

        • Patriot077

          That too! ;)

    • William F

      George Bush was naive and ignorant about Islam. He believed what the Muslims told him at the time. He trusted them. That was a BIG mistake. Now we have a former Muslim as president and he knows what he is doing. Big difference! AND THIS IS SCARY!

  • cree

    Through all the lies, the truth of the matter is we are at war; the war the leftists are pleading to back out of; like caving into the bully’s demands and abuse. It ain’t working, of course.

    Worse they are dividing the country over it. Let that reminder sink back in. Our worst enemy are Americans and a C in C leading them instead of defenders.

  • info warrior

    Obama’s war on terror is designed to be perpetuated by failure.
    This is part of the larger New World Order agenda.
    Perpetual warfare for profit.

  • Libslayer

    Obama was born and raised as a Muslim.
    Thus he is either still a Muslim practicing taqiyyah, or he is an infidel, having converted to Christianity in reverend Wright’s black supremacist church.
    If he were an infidel, he would have a fatwa on his head.
    I believe that destroying America and Israel are obama’s personal jihad.
    I have seen no evidence to the contrary.
    He is the most evil man in America.

    • truebearing

      Obama supposedly rejected Islam and became a Christian, but then so did Rev Wright and he is buddy-buddy with Louis Farrakhan. If Wright really did reject Islam, Farrkhan would be forbidden to have him as a friend, and required to kill him because apostasy is the worst sin in Islam. The same goes for Obama. Obama and Wright are lying about rejecting Islam and about converting to Christianity.

      • Libslayer

        It’s amazing the sheer number of damning, scandalous, horrifying mysteries about Obama that could be explored if we only had a media.

        • William F

          One must go to the independant news sources to get the truth these days. The ones that are not controlled by the selling of shares on Wall Street. This well as been poisoned by the investments of Muslim Broterhood.

  • 2wotvet

    Saddam Hussein was a secular Arab dictator. He had as much to fear from Al Qaeda and Islamists as America, Israel, or a pro-American secular Arab dictator like Mubarak. Just because he supported Hamas (whose only goal is to destroy the state of Israel and replace it with an Arab Muslim state, despite its claim to be Islamic, which makes it more of a nationalist group then a true Islamist one) did not mean he would support Al Qaeda. As it is, by taking Saddam out, we destroyed a bulwark against both Al Qaeda and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    • JayWye

      Wrong. Saddam would not have been -any- “bulwark” against Al-Qaeda or Iran. Iran did LOTS of mischief while Saddam ruled Iraq,they were “waging war” against the US the whole time,ever since their 1979 Revolution. Saddam had a stripped commercial jet fuselage specifically set up for “anti-hijacker training”,except that NO Iraqi would ever consider trying to hijack an Iraqi jet,”commercial” or government,not while Saddam ruled Iraq. It may have been used to train the 9-11 hijackers. Saddam allowed Al-Qaeda safe passage and safe harbor. (so did Iran)

      Saddam loved anyone who gave the US trouble or grief.
      (same for Iran under the Ayatollahs.)

      • 2wotvet

        And yet, there is now a caliphate
        in Iraq and a far more powerful
        and mischievous Iran now that Saddam is gone. True Saddam loved anyone who gave America
        trouble, he probably did turn a blind eye to some Al Qaeda passage through
        Iraqi territory. But it is one thing to allow them safe harbor and passage, or
        even to have let them use an old airplane to train on. But it is quite another
        to give them WMD’s that Al Qaeda would have used on him in a heartbeat, and
        Saddam understood that.

        • Moa

          Removing Saddam was not the problem.

          Removing US forces was.

          The fundamental fault lies with Obama and the rest of the Democrat traitors, not with Bush.

      • Erudite Mavin

        Yes and to prove this see my link above.

    • Erudite Mavin

      Now for the facts

      Pre-War Quotes from Democrats
      Iraq and a History of Terrorism
      Connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda
      Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
      Life in Iraq under Saddam
      Recommended Reading

      http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/

    • glpage

      Wrong, George Tenet discussed agreements between Saddam and al Qaeda. Saddam allowed al Qaeda to train in Iraq. Iraq may even have provided some WMD training to al Qaeda. Was Saddam going to join forces with al Qaeda? Probably not, he was more pragmatic than that, but, he wasn’t going to do anything to stop al Qaeda.

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp?page=2

  • Capt Bob

    I finally found something that is larger than the budget.

  • RMThoughts

    God forbid we lose our terror of terror and put in jeopardy the perpetual war on terror. To realize their fantasies of world hegemony, the neocons resort to a triple discourse: a cynical Machiavellian, amoral political philosophy developed by their mentor Leo Strauss for domestic consumption; a cold analysis of Israeli strategic interests for the benefit of the leaders in Tel Aviv, and a fear-mongering warning against imaginary or made to order dangers besetting U.S. public opinion.

  • Cleetus

    When people try to tell you that the Sarin containing bombs and rockets were corroded and therefore not weapons of mass destruction, you should let them know in a vast understatement that they are idiots. Rockets and bomb casings are cheap and easy to buy or make. The real weapon is the Sarin gas and it is the Sarin gas that is so difficult to make (as compared to a bomb casing). Plants capable of manufacturing Sarin gas also come under a lot of scrutiny by the US, UN and others. The reality is simply. If you have Sarin gas, it doesn’t matter container it is in or the condition of those containers (other than safety issues for the people owning the gas) – you own a WMD.

  • William James Ward

    The three bedrocks of the Obama Administration are
    1) Lie 2) Cheat and 3) Steal. All that is odious and objectionable
    to decent people is rife in Washington’s District of Criminals.
    Our future is dark unless the recent elections have produced
    real change, not just more of the same go along to get along
    in being re-elected. The American Political scene has been
    sickening and without change we are doomed. Have we had
    enough yet, we shall see as the true depravity of the
    Democratic Party is revealed and the RHINO’S expose us
    to further plunder and depredations………………William

    • William F

      I would not be the bit surprised if our elected and their families have been threatened with a fatwa on their heads if they do not give in to Islamic movement.

      • William James Ward

        Delivered by Mullah Obama…………..W

  • USARetired

    ‘When In Rome, Do As The Romans’, and Obama, the devout Muslim advocates Lying as normal activity!

    • RMThoughts

      And neocon Straussians make truth a habit?

  • johnnywood

    This article did not tell me much that I did not already know but it made one amusing statement concerning John Kerry”sitting on the Intelligence committee”. Now that is rich:-)

  • RMThoughts

    Do you think it is as many lies and deceptions as the neocons tell to perpetuate it? Tough call.

  • William F

    This is an intentional lie! This man is a former Muslim he knows the truth. He is counting on you who know little or nothing about this political ideology Islam being disguised as a religion and he knows it of course. These are wolves dressed in sheeps clothing who have infiltrated the flock and have begun to devour the sheep in this country. Don’t believe that incidents in this country where the terrorist screams Allah Ackbar is work place violence. It’s just not true!