Star Tribune: Iraq War still matters to Democrats

We're likely to hear the same defeatist rhetoric from Washington insider and Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, Joe Biden at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

You've heard the familiar lamentation from the Left: we need to get out of Iraq, this was an illegal war, Bush is worse than Hitler/Saddam/Stalin, etc, and he should be prosecuted for war crimes.

Yawn.

According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Iraq still matters to delegates. If this story exposes anything, it epitomizes misplaced priorities in the Liberal agenda:

Universal health care, alternative energy, surrender from Iraq.

Furthermore, it demonstrates how inexplicably naive and misinformed the Left is.

"Minnesota delegate Miguel Lindgren, of Roseville, said he is worried that Iraq is taking a back seat to the convention's focus on domestic issues.

'I haven't heard much, and it concerns me," Lindgren said. 'Obviously, we're getting lost in the hype and the hoopla in the convention talking about issues at home finally, but we need to readdress the war.'"

Of course it is, you nincompoop. The war is going well, despite every effort from your corrupt liberal mainstream media to paint it as the second coming of Vietnam. Even your beloved Messiah, Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama is having a difficult time portraying Iraq as a failure.

There ARE more pressing issues our future president needs to address, primarily a sinking dollar, sluggish economy, insane gas prices, etc.

"And one of the more forceful comments about Iraq at the convention came from Sen. Edward Kennedy on Monday night. 'Barack Obama will be a commander in chief who understands that young Americans in uniform must never be committed to a mistake, but always to a mission worthy of their bravery,' Kennedy told the crowd."

What a disengenous boob. You and your Leftist ilk (namely Bill Clinton and Al Gore) were clamoring for the dismissal of Saddam Hussein in the 1990's while maintaining that the Iraqi despot was feverishly working on a WMD program consisting of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Even your new VP candidate had strong words about Saddam earlier this decade (thank you Gateway.com):

Here is the transcript of Joe "Glowstick" Biden speaking about Saddam's WMD.
Joe Biden on Meet the Press on Sunday April 29, 2007:

MR. RUSSERT: I want to go back to 2002, because it’s important as to what people were saying then and what the American people were hearing. Here’s Joe Biden about Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security.”

“We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

“He must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.” You were emphatic about that.

SEN. BIDEN: That’s right, and I was correct about that. He must be, in fact—and remember the weapons we were talking about. I also said on your show, that’s part of what I said, but not all of what I meant. What I also said on your show at the time was that I did not think he had weaponized his material, but he did have. When, when the inspectors left after Saddam kicked them out, there was a cataloguing at the United Nations saying he had X tons of, X amount of, and they listed the various materials he had. The big issue, remember, on this show we talked about, was whether he had weaponized them. Remember you asked me about those flights that were taking place in southern Iraq, where—were they spraying anthrax? And, you know, what would happen? And, you know, so on and so forth. And I pointed out to you that they had not developed that capacity at all. But he did have these stockpiles everywhere.

MR. RUSSERT: Where are they?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them.

The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so? Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would’ve, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth.

But does it really surprise anyone that the Left refuses to address incriminations from its dear beloved Democratic leaders when THEY admonish the world for failing to act against a ruthless tyrant? No, only when it comes from a Republican.

Typical.

13 Iraq War Protestors arrested in Wisconsin: Indicative of the movement's "collective intelligence"

I spied this article, courtesy of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Evidently, 13 boneheads attempted to enter the Fort McCoy military installation in Western Wisconsin, illegally.

So when in doubt, commit a crime by attempting to breach security at a United States military establishment. For all the clamoring the Leftinistra does regarding its superiority to us redneck hillbillies on the Right, they're really not very bright. Perhaps, it's a naivety.

For the past five plus years, the American populace has endured the tirades and lies from the Left about the Iraq War. Just yesterday, on my journey home to the western suburbs from St. Paul, a small group of protesters gathered on an overpass above I-94 and displayed various anti-war signs and banners, for example, "Stop 'Iraqnam' now."

How did this country transition from serving as a bastion of freedom and democracy, with an active global agenda of spreading freedoms, to virtually celebrating, condoning, and pardoning virtually indefensible actions from those like Saddam Hussein, Josef Stalin, Osama bin Laden, all in the name of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)?

Furthermore, in their naivety, the Left is 1.) hedging their bets that we will lose not only in Iraq, but in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well; 2.) believes that Bush and the neo-cons have provoked Muslim terror, and that if we only disengage from places like the Middle East, we can "coexist" peacefully with each other.

This sort of civil disobedience is emblematic of the Left's agenda: commit a crime, yell the loudest, stomp one's feet, and ultimately remind others of a small child.

More problematic is that the Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama, is a flag-bearer for these sorts of fringe groups. These groups, which, despite Obama's futile attempt to morph towards the Center, adore him. A very real possibility exists that Hussein Obama will take power as the next American president.

How, as a former community activist, will Hussein Obama embrace his Leftist brethren?

The bottom line is this: if Hussein Obama becomes our next president, we are in BIG, I repeat, BIG trouble.

Here's the complete article:

13 arrested at Fort McCoy

Associated Press

August 11, 2008

FORT MCCOY, Wis. - Thirteen people protesting the Iraq war were arrested for trying to enter the Fort McCoy military installation in western Wisconsin.

The protesters delivered a letter seeking an end to the war Sunday afternoon and asked to enter the fort to talk with soldiers. They were denied access and asked to leave.

The 13 people were arrested after going beyond secured boundaries.

Fort McCoy spokeswoman Linda Fournier says the demonstrators have a right to express their opinion, but not to breach security.

The protesters were cited for trespassing, fingerprinted and escorted off the base. Authorities told them if they attempted to re-enter they would be taken into federal custody.

___

Information from: WKBT-TV, http://www.wkbt.com

Australia's "The Age:" Iraq War was a failure

According to Australian "The Age," "Iraq is an example of a profound failure of US policy. Afghanistan must not fall victim to a similar failure by either of the rivals for the White House."

It was?

Our invasion to remove a psychotic murderous despot who violated 16 U.N. sanctions was a failure?

The fact that we established a DEMOCRACY in a hotbed of theocratic, human-right violating, totalitarian countries was a failure?

How was it failure? Because we couldn't convince feckless European countries with close ties to Saddam to assist in the military option?

Some points:

"Senator Obama, who opposed the war from the outset, says he will withdraw America's combat troops from Iraq by mid-2010. "We made a strategic error," he says of the invasion."

First, Obama was not a Illinois senator during 2002, which precluded him from taking a stance on the Iraq War. More than likely he, like his Democratic brethren who authorized military action in 2002, he would have voted FOR said military action. Second, undoubtedly the Bush Administration made strategic errors AFTER we topped Saddam's Baathist regime; but let their be no doubt that the invasion and the way our military prosecuted the war was NOT a strategic error. One could almost grant the opposition that it would have been better to leave Saddam as a counterweight to the growing Iranian hegemony, but a moot point exists.

Second, we in the United States hear too often from foreign countries that we have not ingratiated ourselves around the world. For that matter, we have tarnished our image by "occupying" a Muslim country, say some.

Of course, those dissenters forget that according to the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (DAC/OECD), "the United States remains the largest donor of "official development assistance" at $23.53 billion in 2006."

Those same naysayers also forget the the billions of dollars in foreign aid we give during global catastrophes; for example, we gave over two billion dollars in foreign aid, the most of any country, in response to the 2004 tsunami that struck Indonesia, Sri Lanka, etc.

Or the critics disregard the fact that we deposed of a violent thug in Saddam Hussein, a man who used chemical gas on Kurdish dissidents in Halabja (just one event in a campaign where Saddam called for the extermination of the entire Kurdish population; he ultimately butchered 182,000 people), killed 148 Shiite militants in 1982, murdered 8,000 members of Masoud Barzani's clan (leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, reduced the population of the Shiite Marsh Arabs from 250,000 to 30,000 through starvation and forced migration, and ultimately murdered approximately 500,000 Shiites in the aftermath of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Furthermore, according to About.Com: Civil Liberties:

"Although most of Hussein's large-scale atrocities took place during the 1980s and early 1990s, his tenure was also characterized by day-to-day atrocities that attracted less notice. Wartime rhetoric regarding Hussein's "rape rooms," death by torture, decisions to slaughter the children of political enemies, and the casual machine-gunning of peaceful protesters accurately reflected the day-to-day policies of Saddam Hussein's regime. Hussein was no misunderstood despotic "madman." He was a monster, a butcher, a brutal tyrant, a genocidal racist--he was all of this, and more."

So where's the love? Why is the United States vilified? It is because the appeasers in ineffective Europe and other supporters of Saddam's murderous regime did not want the thug deposed? Is it because they did business with the man, despite numerous United Nations sanctions? Or could it be they despised the United States for finally growing a set and usurping the murderous tyrant?

Yellowcake Uranium found in Iraq: Vindication, but no thanks to the MSM

It's really quite sad how biased our media has become. I was browsing the web yesterday, looking for topics upon to pontificate, when I came across an op-ed piece written by Christopher Merola on Townhall.com. This column, entitled "Have Your Yellowcake and Eat it too," discusses a recent Associated Press report about how the our military recently shipped approximately 550 tons of yellowcake, FOUND IN IRAQ, back to the United States for safe keeping.

Yet, we've heard virtually nothing in the mainstream media, which, in case you've been living in a cave for the past 20 years, is OVERWHELMINGLY liberal. In fact, reading liberal media, the consensus is either that the Bush Administration PLANTED this uranium in Iraq or his father's administration (H.W.) clandestinely allowed Saddam to keep 550 tons of yellowcake uranium so his son (Dubya) could have impetus to invade Iraq 12/13 years later.

It's almost laughable, but it isn't. For three, four, five years we've been told that George Bush lied to us, that he waged war against Iraq illegally. We were told that Saddam NEVER possessed WMD; in fact, neo-cons and their Republican benefactors recklessly cost us blood and treasure for oil, to retaliate against a regime and a man that attempted to assassinate H.W. Bush, or merely for the fun of it.

We've been told that Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was sent on a fact-finding mission to Niger with the hope of investigating claims that Iraqi agents attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium (to aid in the nuclear process), found no evidence of any transactions or even attempts to purchase said yellowcake uranium, despite intelligence to the contrary not just from the CIA but from British and Russian intelligence.

What you won't hear from the supposedly impartial mainstream media is that in fact the Butler Report from the British Parliamentary found CREDIBLE intelligence that Iraq attempted to purchase 500 tons of yellowcase from Niger in 1999. According to Gregg Jackson's "Conservative Lies to Liberal Comebacks," the Butler Report stated that in order to disparage the Bush Administration and the war effort, someone forged documents and openly distributed them, saying that Saddam had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium. They SO badly forged the documents, they had to make the yellowcake claim to be a lie. MOST, including the mainstream media, elitist liberals, and the rest of the sheeple on the Left, believed it.

We've also been told that in response to Wilson's "claims," Vice President Dick Cheney revealed to columnist Robert Novak, that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a COVERT CIA agent. Furthermore, we've been told that Wilson was sent at the behest of Cheney. Finally, we've been implored to believe that Plame was an active CIA agent. But despite what the mainstream media would have you believe, the FOLLOWING is actually true: first, the revelation that Plame had worked for the CIA came from Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, who vehemently opposed the Iraq War; second, the request for Wilson to investigate the yellowcake claim came at the behest of Plame herself; finally, Plame had not worked "undercover" (considered a covert agent) for over six years...in fact, she was assigned to a desk job.

I write this because I was having a conversation with my fiance about another lie perpetuated by liberals and their enablers in the media: global warming. She had expressed a desire to know what the TRUTH is about rising gas prices, carbon dioxide, melting icebergs, etc. She subsequently stated that it would be nice if one could navigate to a website that actually stated the facts.

Ironically, this conversation occurred after reading the recent report about the recent shipment of Saddam's yellowcake uranium. It's time for us in the conservative blogosphere to spread the message: we refuse to tolerate the lies and vitriol spread from the left.

What Liberals Will NOT Tell You about the Iraq War

I came across this article in Commentary Magazine. Unfortunately, for sanctimonious liberals, it reveals (as if those with commonsense didn't already know) that your glorious leader, Bill Clinton, warned anyone who would listen about the threat posed by one Saddam Hussein.

"It is too often forgotten, not least by historians, that George W. Bush did not invent the idea of deposing the Iraqi tyrant. For years before he came on the scene, removing Saddam Hussein had been a priority embraced by the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton and by Clinton’s most vocal supporters in the Senate:

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. . . . Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

These were the words of President Clinton on the night of December 16, 1998 as he announced a four-day bombing campaign over Iraq. Only six weeks earlier, Clinton had signed the Iraq Liberation Act authorizing Saddam’s overthrow—an initiative supported unanimously in the Senate and by a margin of 360 to 38 in the House. “Iraqis deserve and desire freedom,” Clinton had declared. On the evening the bombs began to drop, Vice President Al Gore told CNN’s Larry King:

You allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons. How many people is he going to kill with such weapons? . . . We are not going to allow him to succeed. [emphasis added]

What these and other such statements remind us is that, by the time George Bush entered the White House in January 2001, the United States was already at war with Iraq, and in fact had been at war for a decade, ever since the first Gulf war in the early 1990’s. (This was literally the case, the end of hostilities in 1991 being merely a cease-fire and not a formal surrender followed by a peace treaty.) Not only that, but the diplomatic and military framework Bush inherited for neutralizing the Middle East’s most fearsome dictator had been approved by the United Nations. It consisted of (a) regular UN inspections to track and dispose of weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) remaining in Saddam’s arsenal since the first Gulf war; (b) UN-monitored sanctions to prevent Saddam from acquiring the means to make more WMD’s; and (c) the creation of so-called “no-fly zones” over large sections of southern and northern Iraq to deter Saddam from sending the remnants of his air force against resisting Kurds and Shiite Muslims."

Liberals who scream that George Bush, Dick Cheney, et al. are war criminals, seem to forget the following:

1. Saddam violated several UN resolutions calling for full transparency of his weapons program, with military force the ultimate consequence.

2. Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, who also were both Democratic presidential candidates, looked at the same intelligence that the Bush Administration looked at; they ALL drew the same conclusion.

3. Bill Clinton referred to predatory, rogue nations looking to acquire WMD as an "unholy axis." Yet, Bush has taken endless heat over the term, "axis of evil."

I hate to break it you (actually I don't; anything to wipe that smug, latte-creamed, smile off your elitist face), but your accusations of an illegal war are wholly and absurdly ungrounded.

To Obama: Why? Why Do You Insist on Defeat?

I came across this article, courtesy of CNN.com, whereby Democratic presidential candidate Barry Obama insists his mind is set on withdrawing troops from Iraq after he's elected.

My question to Obama: why? Why do you and your liberal ilk insist on singing the Defeatist refrains? Why do you insist on disparaging our military under the guise of supposedly supporting them? Why do you insist on sending our enemies a message that if THEY persevere and engage in a low-intensity warfare, our country collectively will turn tail and run?

Just what purpose does that serve?

You just don't get it, do you Barry? Neither do your Leftist brethen...

Some points from the article:

"Obama says the need to withdraw troops is twofold:

'One is to spur more action out of the Iraqis. ... But the second reason for withdrawal is the fact that we're spending $10 [billion] to $12 billion a month in Iraq,' Obama said Monday while on a two-day swing through Michigan.

'The people here in Flint, Michigan, who I'm going to be talking to, would like to see some of that investment made here at home.'"

Of course these are the same people Obama admonished for being narrow-minded by clinging to God and guns while frowning on immigration.

Second, Republican presidential candidate pointed out, correctly mind you, that Obama has NOT visited Iraq for nearly 900 days.

"About the same time Obama was speaking to his traveling press corps, McCain told reporters at a press conference at his Arlington, Virginia, headquarters that Obama 'is now is closing in on his 900th day since he visited Iraq.'"

'The whole debate in this campaign should be about whether we're going to allow that surge to continue to succeed or we're again going to do what Sen. Obama wanted to do, and that is to set a date for withdrawal long ago without giving the surge a chance to succeed,' said McCain, again criticizing Obama for not meeting directly with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq.

'I don't know how you can draw conclusions such as Sen. Obama has without even sitting down and talking with our commander on the ground,' he added."

This falls in line with the same tired argument that I hear from liberals ad nauseum, that the surge hasn't worked, we're killing more civilians than terrorists, and our young fighting men and women are dying by the hundreds for nothing. Granted, I've never been to Iraq, but guess Liberal, you haven't either. I don't CARE what CNN or CBS tells you, when 9 out of 10 journalists across ALL media states that he/she leans left, I know I need to filter my mainstream media.

What I DO know however, is that I am willing reports from our military, typical nonpartisan folks that believe serving their country is their top priority, not an elected leader.

Message to Democrats: We Can See You

As the Twin Cities Conservative, I am wont to profile liberal politics and how it impacts Minnesota. An important topic that is prevalent is the current U.S Senate between Republican incumbent Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger Stuart Smalley, er Al Franken.

I came across the article below, courtesy of the St. Cloud State University Chronicle. A couple of points Franken makes in a recent speech epitomize a microcosm of the lying filth liberals and their Democratic enablers utter every day; in this, it's the Iraq War.

Sorry to break it to you, liberals but...THE SURGE WORKED. Violence is down in hot beds such as Basra, Sadr City, Fallujah, etc. Fewer American soldiers are dying to preserve the vision of a Middle East democracy. A fledging Iraqi government is taking shape.

"He instead focused on his plans for the future of Minnesota, which include universal healthcare, rebuilding the middle class, a commitment to developing sources of renewable energy and fighting global warming, and bringing U.S. Troops home from Iraq."

"Franken's Web site calls out Coleman for his continued refusal to authorize the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, as well as his failure as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to look into contracting in Iraq by Halliburton and other corporations."

What good would a withdrawal do at this point? Nothing; if anything, a complete troop withdrawal would proffer catastrophe ramifications: refugee crisis, resurgence in sectarian violence, rebirth of Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist murderers, etc.

Of course pie-in-the-sky liberals would have us believe that our exit from Iraq would undoubtedly cause Islamic terrorists to recant their oaths of murders towards all things American and thus engage in peace "dialogues." Give me a break...only in a liberal dream will that EVER occur.

The Democrats, in this case Al Franken, have offered us the stars, the moon, etc. In their world, universal health care works, our country can operate unabated with open borders, and no wars occur. Unfortunately for those of us on the Right, a significant portion of this country is listening to their message.

Here's the complete article:

Al Franken recieves DFL nomination

By: Andy Baker

Posted: 6/16/08

Comedian-turned-U.S. Senatorial candidate Al Franken secured the official endorsement from Minnesota's Democratic Farmer Labor Party (DFL) on June 7 in Rochester.

Fellow DFL hopeful Jack Pallmeyer withdrew from the race immediately after the results from the first ballot came in.

Franken received the support of 61.8 percent of the delegates, compared with 35.3 percent for Nelson-Pallmeyer.

After Nelson-Pallmeyer's withdrawal however, delegates unanimously endorsed Franken.

Despite recent controversy over the political correctness of some of Franken's past work as a comedian as well as a writer and cast member on Saturday Night Live, the St. Louis Park-raised Democrat appeared unfazed at a campaign rally Thursday at the Communication Workers of America (CWA) Local 7200 Hall in Minneapolis.

Franken made no mention of the recent, much-publicized criticism he has received with regards to his career in comedy.

He instead focused on his plans for the future of Minnesota, which include universal healthcare, rebuilding the middle class, a commitment to developing sources of renewable energy and fighting global warming, and bringing U.S. Troops home from Iraq.

"The people of this state want a change," Franken told an energized crowd at the CWA Hall on Lake Street."It's time we had a senator who took this job seriously."

Prior to and throughout his campaign, Franken has been highly critical of the Bush Administration and of his opponent, Republican incumbent Norm Coleman, particularly with regards to the Iraq War.

"Coleman seems like more of a windsock figure," Franken supporter Jacob Wascalus said after the rally in Minneapolis.

"He doesn't necessarily vote based on his conscience, but rather on whatever the popular thing is at the time."

Franken's Web site calls out Coleman for his continued refusal to authorize the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, as well as his failure as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to look into contracting in Iraq by Halliburton and other corporations.

The Coleman campaign in turn, has accused Franken of being dishonest about Coleman's voting record since taking office and of being unprepared for the job of U.S. Senator.

At Thursday's rally, Franken addressed the need to faithfully represent his college-aged voters, who have grown up during the Bush presidency. "They don't know that government is supposed to work," Franken said.

Franken has been traveling all over Minnesota during his campaign to talk to voters about issues that affect them.

Franken has made several stops in Central Minnesota, including a "roundtable discussion" at a home in Sauk Rapids during which he addressed several issues affecting working families in Minnesota, including the sharp spike in Minnesota college tuition costs.

At Thursday's rally, Franken invoked the words of deceased U.S. Senator and champion of the DFL party, Paul Wellstone.

"The future belongs to those who are passionate and work hard," Franken said to wild applause.

As Minnesota's senate race heats up with the Democratic primary out of the way, both Franken and Coleman will have to work hard and passionately as they fight for their respective visions of the state's future.

Barry Obama won't acknowledge the truth in Iraq

I came across this article, written by martial arts expert and action movie star, Chuck Norris courtesy of Townhall.com. In the article, Norris warns the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Barry Obama, that he is in for a rude awakening if he visits Iraq, for he will not like what he sees.

In his treatise, Norris offers the following points:

1.) Barry Obama has one made trip to Iraq, and that was two years ago.
2.) Obama either receives his updates regarding Iraq from reliable sources or chooses not to believe the "facts on the ground."

Let's face it, Obama is not going admit that the Iraq War is progressing nicely, or that "we" are winning, ESPECIALLY not in an election year. Any tacit admission of success would reinforce the notion that President Bush 1.) invaded Iraq legally; 2.) has justification to do so.

If Obama were to concede that the surge, for example, has been working, he would alienate the far-left, anti-left base. Those groups blithely think that we can talk to our enemies while presuming that there is good in all people.

Furthermore, you can't admonish the war effort but "support the trips," a craft the Democrats have attempted to perfect the last few years. For example, how many times have we seen a Democrat discuss the war effort in a negative fashion while speaking in front of a "support our troops" banner?

These gestures are thinly veiled disguises, nothing more.

Messing with the Democrats

This morning, I was reading Robert Novak's latest op-ed piece, courtesy of Townhall.com; in the column, Novak essentially discusses former Bush Administration Press Secretary Scott McClellan's new book, in which he specifically discusses the SUPPOSED Valerie Plame scandal.

I think we can make the following assumptions, ones that Democrats do NOT want to believe, but should:

1.) Valerie Plame was not some undercover agent, as the Liberal Mainstream Media purported her to be;
2.) Plame's "status" as CIA agent, in which she was almost nothing more than a desk jockey, was not leaked by Vice President Dick Cheney, but rather Secretary of State "mole" Richard Armitage.

McClellan proffers the same tired talking point as so many liberals have uttered over the past 5-6 years: we were MISLED into war, based on faulty evidence.

Keep in mind that the following:

1.) Saddam WAS working on a clandestine weapons program, in violation of United Nations mandates.
2.) Saddam defied over a dozen UN resolutions to make said weapons program transparent, with military action as a consequence.
3.) The Democratic Clinton Administration examined the same evidence years before George Bush won the presidency, and implored the world to act against Saddam.
4.) If we were "misled," we, along with other global intelligence agencies, were misled as well, not by George Bush, but by SADDAM HUSSEIN.

I was reminded of a "conversation" I had a few weeks ago with two liberal co-workers; as I implored them to listen to reason, they were absolutely convinced that the "leaker" or at least the mastermind behind the leak was one Dick Cheney.

Here's the complete piece:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In Scott McClellan's purported tell-all memoir of his trials as President George W. Bush's press secretary, he virtually ignores Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's role leaking to me Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA employee. That fits the partisan Democratic version of the Plame affair, in keeping with the overall tenor of "What Happened."

Although the media response dwelled on McClellan's criticism of Bush's road to war, the CIA leak case is the heart of this book. On July 14, 2003, one day before McClellan took the press secretary's job for which many colleagues felt he was unqualified, my column was published asserting that Plame at the CIA suggested her Democratic partisan husband, retired diplomat Joseph Wilson, for a sensitive intelligence mission. That story made McClellan's three years at the briefing room podium a misery, leading to his dismissal and now his bitter retort.

In claiming he was misled about the Plame affair, McClellan mentions Armitage only twice. Armitage being the leaker undermines the Democratic theory, now accepted by McClellan, that Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and political adviser Karl Rove aimed to delegitimize Wilson as a war critic. McClellan's handling of the leak by itself leads former colleagues to suggest he could not have written this book by himself.

On page 173, McClellan first mentions my Plame leak, but he does not identify Armitage as the leaker until page 306 of the 323-page book -- then only in passing. Armitage, anti-war and anti-Cheney, cannot fit the conspiracy theory that McClellan now buys into. When Armitage after two years publicly admitted he was my source, the life went out of Wilson's campaign. In "What Happened," McClellan dwells on Rove's alleged deceptions as if the real leaker were still unknown.

McClellan at the White House podium never knew the facts about the CIA leak, and his memoir reads as though he has tried to maintain his ignorance. He omits Armitage's slipping Mrs. Wilson's identity to The Washington Post's Bob Woodward weeks before he talked to me. He does not mention that Armitage turned himself in to the Justice Department even before Patrick Fitzgerald was named as special prosecutor.

McClellan writes that Rove told him this about his conversation with me after I called him to check Armitage's leak: "He (Novak) said he'd heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. I told him I couldn't confirm it because I didn't know." Rove told me last week he never said that to McClellan. Under oath, Rove had testified he told me, "I heard that, too." Under oath, I testified that Rove said, "Oh, you know that, too."

McClellan writes, "I don't know" whether the leaker -- he does not specify Armitage -- committed a felony. He ignores that Fitzgerald's long, expensive investigation found no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, if only because Plame was not covered. Nevertheless, McClellan calls the leak "wrong and harmful to national security" -- ignoring questions of whether Plame really was engaged in undercover operations and whether her cover long ago had been blown.

A partisan Democratic mantra began earlier in the book. McClellan writes George H.W. Bush's 1988 campaign "acquiesced to certain advisers, including Roger Ailes and the late Lee Atwater," who opposed Bush's "civility and decency." (McClellan, then 20 years old, played no part in that campaign.) McClellan contends that thanks to Rove in 2002, "the first cracks appeared in the facade of bipartisan comity."

McClellan's fellow Bush aides do not remember him ever saying anything like that. At senior staff meetings discussing policy, they recall, he was silent. His robotic performances from the White House podium seemed only to disgorge what he had been told, and "What Happened" has the similar feel of someone else's hand.

The book so mimics the Democratic line that Ari Fleischer, McClellan's predecessor as press secretary, asked him last week whether he had a ghostwriter. "No," Fleischer told me that McClellan replied, "but my editor tweaked it." (McClellan did not return my call.)

The bland book proposal McClellan's agent unsuccessfully hawked to publishers early in 2007 is not the volume now in bookstores. How and why McClellan changed is a story so far untold.