Andrew Klavan: Democrats at War

In this special episode, our host Andrew Klavan discusses the lies, double-speak, failures and foibles of Democrats at War. See the video and transcript below:



I’m Andrew Klavan and this is the Revolting Truth!

Today, in a Revolting Truth special, we bring you a story so uplifting it’ll remind you of one of those Victoria Secret models…  I never look at pictures of…  Yes, today, we’re going to recount the glories of Democrats at War!

The year is 2002 — In the wake of the horrific Islamist murder of 3,000 people on American soil, President Bush moves to drain the cesspool of tyranny that is the Muslim Middle East!  After our troops chase the monstrous Taliban back to their caves in Afghanistan, our decisive commander-in-chief turns to Iraq where the brutal oppressor Saddam Hussein has consistently destabilized the region and is now, according to all reliable intelligence, building weapons of mass destruction.

Bush’s fear of WMD is shared by the best people the Democrat party has to offer, including serial adulterer Bill Clinton, liar and hypocrite Hillary Clinton, mistress killer Ted Kennedy, horse-faced dunderhead John Kerry, and environmental flimflam man Al Gore…  Wait, those are the best people the Democrat party has to offer?

Anyway, when W asks for authorization to use force against the tyrant Hussein, Democrats vote to approve, including Hillary Clinton:

Hillary:  If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.   So I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little dog t…

Ahem… well, she really did say the first part.

2003 — President W orders the invasion of Iraq.  Democrats are standing behind him — always a dangerous situation.

Desiccated opportunist Harry Reid chimes in:  “I think the president is approaching this in the right fashion…  my precioussssss.”

December of that year, Saddam Hussein is captured, and Democrats celebrate.  Here’s then Senator Joe Biden

Biden:  Gawrsh, Mickey, this is a great day!

By 2006, however, with Bush mistakenly listening to advisors who tell him not to deploy more troops, Al Qaeda invaders help send Iraq spiraling into a bloody civil war…  Democrats bravely standing directly in front of television cameras, heroically pretend they never supported the war in the first place…

Hillary:  If I had been president… I would have never asked for authority to divert our attention from Afghanistan to Iraq and I certainly would never have started this war.

2007 — In one of the most impressive acts of political courage in living memory, W defies his advisors, the polls, the media and most other politicians, and decides to try to stem the Iraq violence with a surge of more than 20,000 troops.  Democrats give the president the kind of support only Democrats can give:

Obama: We can not impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war.

Biden:  The President’s surge is not a solution, it’s a tragic mistake.

Reid:  This war is lost, my preciousss…

The surge works.  Just as Bush predicted, the heightened presence of U.S. troops inspires cooperation from Iraqis.  A U.S. troop drawdown is negotiated.  In the month before Bush leaves office, there are no U.S. combat deaths in Iraq.  The war there is effectively won.

2009 – President Obama takes office…  and his administration tries to take credit for the Iraq peace and the drawdown of troops that Bush negotiated:

Biden:  Gawrsh, I’m very optimistic about Iraq.  I think it’s going to be one of the great achievements of this administration.

2010 – Now commander-in-chief, Obama surges more than 30,000 troops into Afghanistan.  Twice as many U.S. soldiers die there as during the Bush era, and the surge ends two years later having had little effect.  Too moral to order harsh interrogation techniques against a handful of known terrorists, Obama instead uses drones to kill more than 2,000 people only suspected of terrorism, as well as any man, woman or child standing nearby.

He reportedly tells a staffer, “I’m really good at killing people!”

2011 – Bobbling the Bush agreements, Obama fails to negotiate a continued U.S. presence in Iraq and instead triumphantly announces the withdrawal of all U.S. Troops.

Obama:  “We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq.”

The President even brags during his reelection campaign that Al Qaeda is dead.

Which it’s not.

2014 — Al Qaeda affiliated ISIS reverses all the victories of Bush and his military and institutes a campaign of Islamic slaughter that makes the Taliban say, “Wow, those guys are mean.”  ISIS promises that as soon as it’s finished committing genocide, rape and mass murder at home, it’s coming after the United States.

Barack Obama immediately disavows his part in the U.S. Troop withdrawal:

Obama:  That wasn’t a decision made by me that was a decision made by the Iraqi government.

The war we won in Iraq is lost. The sacrifices we made in Afghanistan are rendered useless. With hellacious bloodshed engulfing the entire Middle East, Obama orders a half-hearted U.S. bombing campaign in Iraq that’s likely to accomplish nothing.

And that’s today’s episode of Democrats at War!  Stay tuned next time for the rousing tale of how the Democrat congress withdrew American funding from Viet Nam and Cambodia in 1975, ending the truce Nixon had negotiated there and leaving those nations open to the Communist slaughter of two and a half million people.

Yes, Democrats at War:  a story so patriotic and inspiring it’ll pierce your heart like… a knife in the back.

I’m Andrew Klavan with the Revolting Truth.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

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

  • Ingmar

    The voice impressions…really REALLY annoying. Stop that, and your career will be uninjured.

    • elizabeth greeley

      Oh I AGREE!

  • sid..goldberg

    D or R- they are all warmongering Zio-pigs.

    • CosmotKat

      Will you beg for mercy when ISIS comes for you Sid or ask our military to save your sorry a$$?

      • sid_goldberg

        Haha-I stand a better chance of a Jew giving me $1 out of generosity than of ever being killed by ISIS.

        • CosmotKat

          That would be about 80% true.

        • daniel776

          you apparently are not aware that Jews are the most charitable people on earth. They even give food and care to Gazans and Syrians, free of charge. Why would they not give you $1 out of generosity?

  • sid..goldberg

    Andrew Klavan: A Chickenhawk Talks About War That He Or His Kids Will Never Fight In.

    • Hy Feiber

      He states facts, quit the ad hominem comments.

    • sid..goldberg.

      Also-since Andy switched teams from Anti-Christ to Christian is he now considered goyim or is he grandfathered into The Tribe?

    • Hy Feiber

      So using your illogic, if a doctor engages in malpractice, only doctors can criticize, or if a restaurant provides poor service, the customer is not allowed to complain, unless he has worked in the food industry. Your response is fallacious. No substance, as opposed to Klavan.

    • CosmotKat

      Should we offer you to ISIS in exchange for the next journalist on the beheading circuit?

      • sid_goldberg

        Only if I get to stay in Israeli field hospitals like ISIS does.

        • CosmotKat

          As one of ISIS’s bigger donors they might give you a king size bed.

  • Americana

    Andrew Klavan must not wear a tie when he’s uttering revolting lies. The man has limits on his truths and limits on his intelligence if this is his explanation for the events in the Middle East.

    • sid_goldberg

      Andrew Klavan: Warmongering Chickenhawk Talks Tough About Wars He Would Never Dream of Sending His Kids To Die In.

      • sid_goldberg

        Also-since Klavan switched teams from Anti-Christian to Christian is he now considered goyim or is he grandfathered into The Tribe?

        • truebearing

          Oh look, it’s the gay N azi. Wearing your prettiest pink swastika today?

      • daniel776

        Andrew Klavan was describing past history. What particular war is he supposedly mongering? The war that we have recently intervened in has its origins in the policies of the present administration. Iraq was at peace at the end of the Bush administration, we were suffering no casualties in Iraq, and stability was possible. The present administration allowed that to be frittered away and now we have intervened. Who is the war monger?

        • Americana

          Obviously, stability was “not possible” if there were Islamists arising all over and around Iraq and the Iraqi government was still in total turmoil with sectarian divisions growing deeper by the day at the end of the Bush administration. The fact you’re willing to say that the Bush administration’s momentary quiet before the storm in Iraq indicates “peace” is only you politicizing the events of the past decade and a half.

          This present war has the IDENTICAL GROUNDING in Iraqi sectarian divisions of Bush’s Iraq war w/the added dimension of a megalomaniac PhD having shown up on the scene who’s after his first major career coup — being head of the Caliphate. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may have announced the Caliphate but the Iraqis aren’t flocking to his flag.

          FEBRUARY 10, 2004: U.S. Military uncovers letter addressed to senior al-Qaida operatives seeking help in waging a “sectarian war”

          Brigadier general Mark Kimmit: “There is clearly a plan on the part of outsiders to come into this country and spark civil war, breed sectarian violence and try to expose fissures in the society.” [Guardian, 2/10/04]

          • truebearing

            You don’t have a clue as to what brings about stability. Given your rather unstable personality, i’m not surprised.

          • Americana

            Listen, mr. twit twitter, your feeble attempts to undermine my remarks by a constant barrage of mental instability comments only indicates you’re short on factual rebuttals so you’re attempting to take the cheap azzzz route to the win. Sorry, you lose when you try gaming discussions this way. It’s always obvious when you’re out of facts because the insults immediately come out.

    • daniel776

      he uttered no lie. (I assume you realize that words like preciouss were not meant to be quotations). can you point out one of his “lies?”

      • Americana

        (AK) …our decisive commander-in-chief turns to Iraq where the brutal oppressor Saddam Hussein has consistently destabilized the region and is now, according to all reliable intelligence, building weapons of mass destruction.

        The weapons of mass destruction lie by the Bush administration was the most egregious and self-serving lie told by an American President in many decades. It was made with the best of intentions but it was made at the behest of the political vision of the Neo-cons who never stressed just how long and treacherous the fight against the Islamists would be throughout the Middle East. Then Klavan compounds his factual error by ignoring all the subsequent disclosures about the lies about the WMD-concocted evidence from the CIA in all the other media. Pres. Bush took the courageous decision that Pres. Saddam Hussein was a bad enough guy and his people were rebelling against him anyway, it would be a reasonable strategic choice to try to establish an American “friend” in the region to begin to set an example for the other Arab nations beginning to have sufficient political turmoil, many were seen as heading for revolutions. Trouble is, we bombed Iraq so extensively in an attempt to spare American lives we now face a crippling bill for the rebuilding of Iraq as well as a crippling bill for the expenditures we made to prosecute the Iraq war. Between the munitions, the manpower, and the lifestyle amenities we provided our troops at great expense courtesy of Halliburton (including sub-standard electrical work done by unlicensed Iraqi sub-contractors that ELECTROCUTED American soldiers SHOWERING ON BASES after missions), this war has bankrupted the U.S.

        (AK) 2007 — In one of the most impressive acts of political courage in living memory, W defies his advisors, the polls, the media and most other politicians, and decides to try to stem the Iraq violence with a surge of more than 20,000 troops.

        The surge was an act of POLITICAL DESPERATION as well as COURAGE, not solely an act of political courage. This was his SECOND term and Pres. Bush had nothing to lose by attempting to regain the upper hand. Bush wanted to retain the ephemeral and transitory “victory” the U.S. had over Iraq and Muslim insurgents. Bush was far more likely unwilling to relinquish the illusory control the U.S. had over the rise of the al Qaeda elements in the region.

        (AK) Obama: That wasn’t a decision made by me that was a decision made by the Iraqi government.

        How many times do we have to go over this issue on this site? Does Klavan never present his opinion pieces to an editor before taping? Klavan is allowed to claim the Iraqi government DIDN’T FORCE the U.S. forces to leave because the Iraqis didn’t want the U.S. to have legal immunity for its forces in Iraq (among other issues) and the U.S. wasn’t willing to allow that? The U.S. can’t simply hunker down as an occupying force w/no Status of Forces Agreement signed to protect American soldiers.

        (AK) The war we won in Iraq is lost. The sacrifices we made in Afghanistan are rendered useless. With hellacious bloodshed engulfing the entire Middle East, Obama orders a half-hearted U.S. bombing campaign in Iraq that’s likely to accomplish nothing.

        Klavan, wake up, we only “won the Iraq war” in a very limited fashion and we certainly didn’t win the war against all the Islamist militias in the region. We won the battle against the **STATE of Iraq under Saddam Hussein** and then we began to face a far more implacable and not readily identifiable enemy in many Muslim insurgent groups.

        • kikorikid

          Iraq objected to a “Status of Forces” agreement which left
          few, even only one choice, Withdraw. But wait! The US could have insisted on a new Iraqi Leader but Obama was
          ready to run so that was that. ISIS springs up and negates
          ten years of Blood, Sweat, and Tears and now we have a new Iraqi Leader. The “War Against Islam” has been generational and will be generational.

          • Americana

            Oh, so the U.S. could just have solved the SOFA problem by instating a new Iraqi leader? Are you kidding me??? So how is it you end up w/stating that the “War against Islam will be generational” but you’re not willing to understand that the very same generational qualifier applies to Pres. Bush’s Presidency as it does to Pres. Obama’s?

          • natahn

            if you are nice to the evel you are evil to the nice
            the same thing US did to germany has to be done
            to islamik barbarians.

            in germany they called it entnazification, now go and create a word for islam in this conection.

            the fate of europ is greating you USA


            greatings from germany!

        • Libslayer

          You are blinded by your love of Barack.
          The Middle East is a mess due to him.

          • Americana

            The Middle East is a MESS because of ISLAMISTS. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim Islam is the bringer of all evil and then decide that just because you’ve got a political itch, you’re going to share the wealth about who carries the blame. If Pres. Bush had had a third term, he’dve been in the very same steaming pile as Pres. Obama. That’s the glory of Islamists, they don’t discriminate among American Presidents and their parties.

          • Libslayer

            Bush would have listened to his generals and military advisors, and insisted on a status of forces agreement, with or without Malaki.
            President golfing pantywaist is partying with his boy friends as the Middle East burns.
            But he’s your guy, and you’re sticking with him.
            Two faded Obama/Biden stickers on your rusty Volvo, no doubt about it.

          • Americana

            If Bush had insisted on a Status of Forces Agreement, it would have included having American soldiers facing Iraqi justice… that was the biggest hold-up over the SOFA. You would have been OK w/that?

          • Libslayer

            Bush was not president. If Obama was a man ( he’s not ) he would have told Malaki privately that there would be NO Iraqi justice, and if he didn’t agree, he’d be replaced with someone who did agree, with a cruise missile if necessary.
            But ball less Barry didn’t even try. I guess he was powerless as president of the United States to make that happen. He’s a gutless Muslim loving idiot, and you adore him. Sad for you. Sad for America.

          • Americana

            No wonder you have ‘slayer’ in your BB handle. “Presto, change-o, guys, here’s your latest and greatest Prime Minister. We thought we’d save you the trouble of holding elections…” Nope, that wouldn’t fly given the situation in the Middle East.

          • Libslayer

            So in your opinion, Obama did the right thing by blowing off the SOFA, and the entirely predictable murder and mayhem that followed is of course, per Obama, someone else’s fault.
            Correct? What should the progressive messiah who claims the power to lower the seas and heal the planet do?

          • Americana

            Pres. Obama didn’t “blow off the SOFA.” Unfortunately for Iraq, at some point, the Middle Eastern countries do have to evaluate the dangers inside and outside their countries for themselves. Sadly for us, the Iraqis didn’t recognize they had so little strategic prowess they wouldn’t be able to hold onto their territory if ISIS went on the move.

          • Libslayer

            Obama did blow off the SOFA – because there’s is no SOFA. Duh.
            And you just blamed the Iraqis, so Obama has no culpability AT ALL.
            No culpability for anything: Obama in a nutshell.
            Yep, two tattered Obama/Biden stickers on your Chevy volt.

          • Americana

            GLIBslayer, you’re so glib you expect to get away w/saying anything and everything in this forum because that’s what’s done around here.

            You don’t get to say Pres. Obama “blew off the SOFA because there’s no SOFA.” Those two things are not proof of each other’s role in FAILING TO SECURE a SOFA. That’s not how a proof theorem works.

            OK then, what would you have offered the Iraqis in order to secure a SOFA? You have to retain the legal immunity for American troops. Go… write it up.

          • Libslayer

            Ok then, some unnamed public official blew off the SOFA. Obama had nothing to do with it because he was busy golfing.
            Got it.
            A president who wasn’t a hopelessly weak pantywaist would have played hardball with Malaki.
            But obama is the epitome of feckless and weak.
            And he’s your guy. Yippee.

          • truebearing

            Bush had a SOFA. It was Obama’s responsibility to work one out during HIS TERM, idiot.

            And don’t bother with the lame “but the Iraqis insisted on provisions that would have allowed them to try American soldiers in their courts.” That is what is known as a bargaining chip. They knew we wouldn’t give them that, but they also knew we would give them more of what they really wanted: money.

          • Americana

            Listen, idiot, that’s not an issue that we solve by DRIVING THIS COUNTRY FURTHER INTO DEBT.

          • truebearing

            BS. Bush would have renewed the SOFA, and done it quite easily. ISIS wouldn’t have had time to muster their force becaudse Bush would have squashed them. Bush would have spent his time defeating Al Qeada, not arming them with manpads and who knows what else. Not providing them air support so they could overthrow an ally against the Islamists, like Obama did in Libya. Bush certainly wouldn’t have betrayed mubarak, another ally against Muslim terror, so he could set the Muslim Brotherhood up in power, like Obama did. An d he would have helped the good rebels in Syria instead of Al Qeada, like Obama did. And last, but not least, Bush would have acted if someone crossed his red line, instead of bending over for Putin, like Obama did.

          • Americana

            truebearing, that’s NOT how you write a response. You don’t wave your magic wand and make the claim that Pres. Bush would have, PRESTO!, renewed the SOFA. Mr. Bush would have faced the EXACT SAME points of contention w/the Iraqis that Pres. Obama faced. The primary stumbling block was whether American forces would be subject to Iraqi justice but there were other points that were equally contentious. If Pres. Bush would have found it to be (PRESTO!) easily accomplished, he likely would have attempted to secure a new SOFA prior to leaving office.

            If Pres. Bush had decided to support Pres. Mubarak, he would have been acting against a large proportion of the Egyptian populace and that would have been used by the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS in a different fashion for propaganda. The fact is these issues in the Middle East ensnare the U.S. whichever tactic we use to manage them. As for Pres. Bush not letting Putin cross his “red lines,” somehow I doubt Mr. Bush would have done airstrikes or taken any offensive military actions to help Ukraine retain Crimea. Ukraine isn’t of strategic value to the U.S.

        • truebearing

          WMDs were in Iraq, and they are still being found. Saddam never gave up trying to acquire nukes either. He tried to buy yellowcake in Niger…remember?

          Name one intelligence agency in the world that didn’t believe Saddam had large stockpiles of WMDs at that time. Certainly all of the leading Democrats agreed that he did. Hillary, Gore, Reid, et al were all posturing mightily about how Saddam needed to be dealt with. Every one of them was for going into Iraq.

          • Americana

            Only one large remaining cache of WMDs was found in Iraq after the latest Iraq war and the cache was found to be functionally degraded. Besides, U.S. intelligence knew the Iraqis had dismantled their chemical/biological weapons programs from the previous intervention of Pres. George H.W. Bush and knew that whatever remained stockpiled had a finite shelf life. CBW weapons have shelf lives (for the most part) and these stockpiles wouldn’t have been viable. If you read between the lines of the following report, you’ll see just how cagey the statements were on the realities of what we knew.


            As for the yellowcake, being able to buy some ingredients for a nuclear device doesn’t enable a country to bypass buying and developing all the other ingredients for nuclear weapons that enable them to be delivered by ICBM. If this weren’t so, countries like Niger would already have joined the nuclear club. The Iraqis didn’t have enough of the nuclear infrastructure to make any yellowcake purchase produce a bomb.


            From the above link (it takes Nigerian scamming to a whole new level):

            Forgery for gain is easy to understand, especially when it is borne in mind that nobody wastes time counterfeiting a bankrupt currency. Forgery for disinformation, if that is what it was, appears at least to have worked. Almost everybody in the world now affects to believe that Saddam Hussein was framed on the Niger rap.

            According to the London Sunday Times of April 9, the truth appears to be some combination of b) and c). A NATO investigation has identified two named employees of the Niger Embassy in Rome who, having sold a genuine document about Zahawie to Italian and French intelligence agents, then added a forged paper in the hope of turning a further profit. The real stuff went by one route to Washington, and the fakery, via an Italian journalist and the U.S. Embassy in Rome, by another. The upshot was—follow me closely here—that a phony paper alleging a deal was used to shoot down a genuine document suggesting a connection.

    • kikorikid

      And you, Americana, offer nothing but more ad hominems against AK.
      As any Islamist would say, “Thus” you are easily ignored.

      • Americana

        That’s hardly an ad hominem attack. And I certainly wrote out a longer opinion on his dishonesty below if you feel ad hominem attacks can’t take longer forms.

        • truebearing

          It really wasn’t much of an attack, either. Just more of your incessant verbal diahhrea. You need some mental immodium, or a stout gag.

          • Americana

            You ARE a gag.

    • Libslayer

      So, let’s hear your version.
      What he said was true.
      Can you dispute the facts and quotes he cites?

      • Frank Ulino

        Liberals cannot provide facts because they are divorced from the truth.

    • truebearing

      Klavan would chew you up and spit you out in a debate… but then so does everyone else.

      The fact that you failed to pick up on the humor in his witty piece is yet another indicator of mental issues. It was very well done.

      • Americana

        Oh, I picked up on the humor of his piece just fine. I’ll always love his delivery and his accoutrements like his blackboard and his backdrop. A really good graphic designer put that backdrop together. The fact that the truthiness aspect didn’t work in conjunction w/the facts this time is what stuck in my craw. Usually I find several things to admire about his perspective on an issue, this time I didn’t find anything truthful about it. Truth has to be coupled w/the facts for the irony to work. The rest of your post, ppfffffttttt….

    • PaleRider

      Please share with us exactly which of the events Mr Klavan mentioned are lies…I really, really, really want to know.
      Also, explain what wearing a tie has to do with integrity. I really, really, really want to know.
      Finally, what man doesn’t have limits on his intelligence (other than yourself, obviously)?
      Again, I really, really, really want you straighten me out about these things as I surmise only you can.
      Thanks, Americana…now hurry up!

      • Americana

        I think I already did write up the issues in his piece in a fairly detailed fashion in posts down below. Read the posts below before pretending that I didn’t write up my objections to his misrepresentation of the facts.

  • William

    When Democrats go to war, thousands and thousands and thousands of innocent Muslims die.

    • Don Vito

      true dat, but not only moslems. INNOCENT nonmoslems.