Well via Wired that has been combing the Wikileaks documents, that’s exactly what happened. As it turns out our forces were continually finding WMD chemical stockpiles well after the invasion.

“In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.

Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”

Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”

Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”

In WikiLeaks’ massive trove of nearly 392,000 Iraq war logs, there are hundreds of references to chemical and biological weapons. Most of those are intelligence reports or initial suspicions of WMD that don’t pan out. In July 2004, for example, U.S. forces come across a Baghdad building with gas masks, gas filters, and containers with “unknown contents” inside. Later investigation revealed those contents to be vitamins.

But even late in the war, WMDs were still being unearthed. In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. “These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.”

Don’t look for the media to come to the altar of “We were Wrong” though. False beliefs are hard to admit to

“The Bush administration has long maintained they had not decided to invade Iraq until the days before it actually began and that they did “everything” they could to “avoid war in Iraq.” President Bush even claimed that the “American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war.”

Yet there is evidence that the Bush administration, from its very early days, was actively plotting to go to war with the Arab country. From a British memo that noted that “Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme” to memoirs by administration members Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill, there have been numerous disclosures that strongly suggest that the Bush administration was plotting a war against Iraq while recognizing it was not a threat to the United States.

Now, with the help of a Freedom of Information Act request, the National Security Archive has obtained a newly declassified document that details talking points that emerged from a meeting between Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and CENTCOM Commander General Tommy Franks in November 2001.

The talking points mainly revolve around the logistical planning for a war in Iraq. They detail the “decapitation” of the Iraqi government by U.S. forces and make regime change the goal. Interestingly, they already mention U.S. forces “coming out of Afghanistan” to join the invasion of Iraq. Yet the most alarming part of the document is a bullet point titled,

“How start?” (which is a discussion that actually appears after the planning of the entire war). The participants in the Rumsfeld-Frank meeting discussed possible ways to provoke a conflict with Iraq, including an attack by Saddam Hussein against the Kurdish north, the U.S. discovering a “Saddam connection” to 9/11 or the anthrax attacks, or a dispute over WMD inspections. It appears from the language of the talking points that the Bush administration had already decided to go to war with Iraq and was looking for an opportunity to invade

No, dumbasses. This is a situational assessment, not a planning war document. I’m quite familiar with the memo and the notes. They look at three specific scenarios that might occur that would lead to a conflict with Iraq.

1. An attack by Saddam on the Kurds (something the Clinton administration constantly feared), and in fact briefed the incoming Bush administration about.

2. “If” it were determined that Saddam had any connection to 9/11, which wasn’t absolutely certain in November of 2001, or.

3. The third scenario which Saddam actually violated, stalling WMD weapon inspections.

“NEAR THE IRAQ-KUWAIT BORDER — The last U.S. combat troops were crossing the border into Kuwait on Thursday morning, bringing to a close the active combat phase of a 7½-year war that overthrew the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein, forever defined the presidency of George W. Bush and left more than 4,400 American service members and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead.

The final convoy of the Army’s 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, based at Fort Lewis, Wash., was about to enter Kuwait shortly after 1:30 a.m. (6:30 p.m. Wednesday ET), carrying the last of the 14,000 U.S. combat forces in Iraq, said NBC’s Richard Engel, who has been traveling with the brigade as it moved out this week.

“We won! We won! It’s over! We brought democracy to Iraq!” a soldier shouted as fellow soldiers celebrated their arrival in Kuwait this week.
For Staff Sgt. Heon Hong of Guam, the brigade’s departure, which began over the weekend, marked the end of his third tour of duty in Iraq.

“I’m glad I’m here. I’m glad we’re done with Iraq,” Hong said as his transport arrived this week. Hopefully, I never come back to Iraq.”
Another soldier, Sgt. Devon Scarey of Deltona, Fla., said simply, “It feels awesome.”

Brig. Gen. Nick Tooliatos, deputy commanding general for First Theater Sustainment Command in Kuwait, stood at the border all night saluting each soldier as he or she crossed.

“I couldn’t have asked for a better honor than to greet some soldiers who have done great work for a year fighting our nation’s war, and to just be here and render honors to them and welcome them and thank them for a job well done,” Tooliatos said.

“It’s a historic event,” he said. “In 2003, we rolled across this berm into Iraq, and now as we get ready to transition the security of Iraq to Iraq’s own forces, this is a significant retrograde of a combat unit.”

50,000 advisers remain

The timing of the final departure was a closely held secret, occurring in dramatic fashion two weeks ahead of the Aug. 31 deadline President Barack Obama had set to withdraw combat forces and close Operation Iraqi Freedom, which the U.S.-led multinational coalition began March 20, 2003, in the belief that Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that threatened the West.
In a statement, Obama called the troops’ withdrawal a “milestone in the Iraq war” and said, “I hope you’ll join me in thanking them, and all of our troops and military families, for their service.”

Of course Obamadumbo will take the credit for this although he had called the surge would worsen the conflict, and joined Harry Reid in calling the war effort a failure.

And reiterated that the surge wasn’t working when in fact it was.

This is therefore a victory for the troops those who fought and died and those who survived, and a vindication of George Bush’s effort to democratize Iraq.

If Obama was honest he say – as most of the left would – that they are pissed off the damn thing didn’t blow up and fail. That’s what they politicked on and hoped for, but thank God it didn’t.

Iraq
Iraq War

Joe (Chia-Pet) Biden on Larry King.

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.”

Oh really?

Seeing how both Chia and boss vehemently were against the troop surge and wanted to cut and run want to dance in the streets with success on the backs and blood of the sacrifice of our troops, this is despicable.   Let me tell you weasels something, success in Iraq has NOTHING to do with you, you have NO RIGHT to claim it, and please do America and the memory of our troops a favor and STFU!

Technorati Tags:
Joe Biden, Iraq, Barack Obama

“WASHINGTON – A federal judge dismissed all charges Thursday against five BlackwaterWorldwide security guards accused of killing unarmed Iraqi civilians in a crowded Baghdad intersection in 2007.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina said Justice Department prosecutors improperly built their case on sworn statements that had been given under a promise of immunity. Urbina said the government’s explanations were “contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility.”

The decision throws out a case steeped in international politics. The September 2007 shooting in busy Nisoor Square left 17 Iraqis dead and inflamed anti-American sentiment abroad. The Iraqi government wanted the guards to face trial in Iraq and officials there said they would closely watch how the U.S. judicial system handled the case.”

This was a political case from the get-go brought on by liberal prosecutors in the DOJ. Eric Holder had wanted this to be the first of many such witch hunts on the Bush administration and it failed miserably.

Good call!

“Over the past many months a number of interviews, documents,
admissions and other revelations have come to light that continue to
undermine the notion that al Qaeda and al Qaeda linked groups were not
able to operate inside Iraq during the rule of Saddam Hussein. These
findings match up with older reports on the hotly contested that may
now deserve re-examination.

A study by The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point of al Qaeda documents deemed the “Sinjar Records”
indicates that al Qaeda was, in fact, able to operate inside the
country during the rule of the former regime. The center also has
previously posted internal al Qaeda documents in which al Qaeda members
revealed to one another that “some of them went to Saddam” likely in referrence to al Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan to Iraq.

These documents match the testimony of what a former overseer of
Iraqi prisons, Dan Bordenkircher, claims he was told by numerous
prisoners. In an interview with Ryan Mauro,
Bordenkircher says that he was told that al Qaeda was not limited to
areas beyond Saddam Hussein’s control but was present in Mosul and
Kirkuk and received assistance from one of Saddam Hussein’s sons.

In an interview with FrontPage magazine, Osama al Magid, a former police officer in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq from 1992-2003, said that al Qaeda was present and protected in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

FP: How about Al Qaeda in Iraq?
Al-Magid: Al Qaeda and other people who believed the same as Al Qaeda
had been in Iraq for many years. When I say “believed” I mean people
who hated America and wanted to destroy the U.S.

Saddam had this in common with Al Qaeda and this is why he provided them protection.

In an interview last year conducted by Michael Totten a Sunni Iraqi stated that al Qaeda wasn’t out in the open in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq but was there in some capacity.

“We can’t compare that to the situation we have now with
all these different types of organizations running around all over the
country. Before there was nothing like an Al Qaeda
organization here. I mean, they were here, but they were secretive,
they were not in the field, they were not recognized yet. But now we feel that they are serious, that something big is going on.”

Also on this topic Thomas Joscelyn points out that a fairly recent Senate Intelligence Committe report
on prewar Bush adminstration statements on the topic backed up
allegations that al Qaeda was in Saddam’s Iraq and not limited to
Kurdistan. Joscelyn found that the report included the following
statements:

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi and other al Qaeda-related terrorist members were
substantiated by the intelligence assessments.
Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq and his
ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence
community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known
about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi’s presence in the
country.

Joseph Shahda translated and explained a
2008 al Qaeda document, reportedly written by Saif al Adel, who denied
links between the group and Saddam Hussein’s regime but said the group
did have a presence in the Sunni areas of Iraq building cells prior to invasion.

Jeff Stein’s interview with former CIA operative Charles Faddis
revealed that al Qaeda did have a presence in Iraq prior to invasion
though Faddis argues that there was no link to Saddam Hussein’s
government (more on Farris’s thoughts on the topic will be shared in a
yet to be published interview with this website).

A story posted on al Sumaria‘s website
(link is now down) stated that followers of Saddam Hussein welcomed al
Qaeda into Iraq during the invasion and worked together to cause chaos
in the country.

It is to be noted that in the wake of the US invasion to
Iraq, Sunni Arabs, followers of former President Saddam Hussein
welcomed Al Qaeda and allowed for the flow of foreign fighters across
the borders to fuel insurgency in Anbar province and establish quasi
military structures in Falluja mainly. Al Qaeda and Saddam supporters
have imposed their power in these regions and went through fierce
battles with the Marines. However, as Al Qaeda’s arbitrary violence has
mounted against civilians, Arab tribes formed awakening councils funded
by the US aimed against Al Qaeda.

In another Senate report looking into the reported mistreatment of detainees Senior
Guantanamo Bay interrogator David Becker told the committee
interviewing him that “only ‘a couple of nebulous links”’ were
uncovered between al Qaida and Iraq (An interview with someone in charge of interviewing detainees in Iraq by this website is also in the works.)

In a post on his Global Terror Alert website in January 2006 Evan Kohlman
analzyed al Qaeda in Iraq’s “Distinguished Martyrs” series which
included a document discussing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al Qaeda
members and saying that they did not fight alongside members of Saddam
Hussein’s regime at the start of the Iraq war though the document does
not give the reasons for this decision.

Abu Umar al-Masri – A 37-year old senior Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ)
leader trained in Yemen and Afghanistan who later joined a group of
other elite EIJ operatives
in Albania preparing for jihad in nearby Kosovo. When other members of
the infamous “Albanian Returnees” group were seized in a joint mission
by Albanian security services and the CIA for targeting the U.S. embassy
in Tirana, Abu Umar fled Albania for Italy, where he was imprisoned for
several years as a suspected terrorist. After a harrowing trip through
Germany, Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria, Abu Umar eventually ended up in
Iraq just prior to the fall of Saddam Hussein and joined Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi.

Evan Kohlman also posted another document which old CT Blog post cited Abu Ismail al-Muhajir saying:

“As I have explained before, the brothers in Iraq decided to stay out of the war and not to fight alongside Saddam until the war was over and Saddam’s regime was eliminated. They had many reasons for making this decision… Nonetheless, the situation took a turn for the worse after the regime’s collapse... we decided to stay and hide [in Iraq].

The Institute for Defense Analysis investigation of Saddam Hussein era documents showed regime support for EIJ and EIJ has been documented as having had a presence in Saddam’s Baghdad.

Nikolas K. Gvosdev , a professor at the Naval War College and editor at The National Interest, relayed a guest post from Alexis Debat in a June 2006 at The Washington Realist stating that :

According to Jordanian intelligence sources, these
individuals were highly instrumental in setting up Zarqawi’s network in
Iraq in 2002. Abu Ayyub al Masri, for example, was reported by the US
military to have set up Zarqawi’s first cell in Baghdad in mid-2002.
This Egyptian group, led by al Masri, is reported to have played a
critical role in Al Qaeda in Iraq, which cell structure and modus
operandi are almost identical to those of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad in
the 1980s.

Abu al Masri was also said to have close ties to Ayman al Zawahiri, who reportedly had links to Iraq going back many years.

In 2004 TIME magazine reported on al Qaeda documents showing Zarqawi and some of his associates were in Baghdad during Saddam’s rule:

He spent the months leading up to the war moving through
Iran and northern Iraq, where he attached himself to the Kurdish
Islamist group Ansar al-Islam. A confidential al-Tawhid document
obtained by TIME describes a fighter killed
in Fallujah last April as having joined al-Zarqawi in Baghdad “just
before the fall of the previous regime”—a claim that backs up the Bush
Administration’s disputed assertions that al-Zarqawi passed through the
Iraqi capital while Saddam Hussein was in power.
Al-Zarqawi has built his network in Iraq by exploiting the furies
unleashed by the fall of Saddam.

The notion that an Iraq-al Qaeda link was based solely, or even primarily, on one or a few mistreated al Qaeda detainees
is not a very serious one when al Qaeda documents, Baath documents,
detainee admissions and other revelations, both old and new, show that
al Qaeda was in areas of Iraq under Saddam Hussein’s control and the
full extent or reason for this presence has yet to be thoroughly
explained to the general public.”

Crossposted at Regime of Terror.

“BAGHDAD (AP) – Cheered wildly by U.S. troops, President Barack Obama flew unannounced into Iraq on Tuesday and promptly declared it was time for Iraqis to “take responsibility for their country” after America’s commitment of six years and thousands of lives.

“You have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country,” the president said as he made a brief inspection of a war he opposed as candidate and now vows to end as commander in chief. “That is an extraordinary achievement.”

A total of 4,265 U.S. troops have lost their lives in Iraq since March 2003, and Obama said American forces had “performed brilliantly … under enormous strain.”

“It is time for us to transition to the Iraqis,” he said as an estimated 600 troops cheered. “They need to take responsibility for their country.”

Obama also met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who said afterward that he had “assured the president that all the progress that has been made in the security area will continue.”

Obama said he had “strongly encouraged” the Iraqi leader to take steps to unite political factions, including integrating Sunnis into the government and security forces.

Obama flew into Iraq shrouded by secrecy and was shielded by heavy security from the moment he stepped off a gleaming white and blue Air Force One.

The plane touched down a few hours after a car bombing in a Shiite neighborhood of the capital city punctuated a recent surge in violence in the war-ravaged country. Many thousands of Iraqis have died in the six years of war in addition to the American losses.”

Yeah Jennifer we get the point. Still the lowest casualty rate in any war in the modern era – a testament to the professionalism of our men and women in uniform. Fact is more died on active duty during Clinton’s reign. Nevertheless, about that “surprise visit”.

It wasn’t. The visit was communicated a full 24 hours in advance and a small contingent of soldiers – not screaming hoards – were rustled into a meeting place at Camp Victory.

Got this email from a sergeant that was there.

“We were pre-screened, asked by officials “Who voted for Obama?”, and then those who raised their hands were shuffled to the front of the receiving line. They even handed out digital cameras and asked them to hold them up.”

Take a look at the picture at AP and notice all the cameras are the same models? Coincidence? I think not.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Iraq

“WASHINGTON — President Obama won crucial backing on Thursday for his Iraq military withdrawal plan from leading Congressional Republicans, including Senator John McCain, the party’s presidential nominee, who spent much of last year debating the war with Mr. Obama.

As the president prepared to fly to Camp Lejeune, N.C., on Friday to announce that he would pull combat forces out by August 2010 while leaving behind a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops, he reassured Congressional leaders from both parties that his plan would not jeopardize hard-won stability in Iraq.

But Republicans emerged from a meeting Thursday evening more supportive than several leading Democrats, who complained earlier in the day that the president was still leaving behind too many American forces.

Mr. McCain said during the private White House meeting that he thought the withdrawal plan was thoughtful and well prepared, according to several people who were in the room. His spokeswoman, Brooke Buchanan, confirmed by e-mail on Thursday night that Mr. McCain is “supportive of the plan.”

The convergence of Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain on Iraq would have seemed highly improbable just a few months ago, when they clashed harshly on the future of the American mission there. Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being naïve and opposed his withdrawal plans. At one point, Mr. McCain said Mr. Obama “would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.”

Even since the inauguration, Mr. McCain, who represents Arizona, has remained a tough opponent of Mr. Obama, at least on economic matters. But the two have come to a common ground of sorts on Iraq, the issue that once defined their rivalry.

Mr. McCain’s views were echoed by other Republicans briefed in the State Dining Room by Mr. Obama, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Obama team told two dozen lawmakers from both parties that at least 90,000 of the 142,000 troops in Iraq would be withdrawn by August 2010 — 19 months after the president’s inauguration, or three months longer than the time frame he had outlined as a candidate.

Most withdrawals will take place next year to allow commanders to keep as many forces as possible through parliamentary elections in December. Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen told the lawmakers that Gen. David H. Petraeus, the Middle East commander, and Gen. Ray Odierno, the Iraq commander, were comfortable with the plan, according to people in the room.

Representative John M. McHugh of New York, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said Mr. Obama had reassured him that he would revisit his plan if circumstances changed.”

No doubt this wasn’t Obama’s decision, the plan had been in operation under Bush with pretty much the same game plan. With Iraq settling down troops will be needed elsewhere – like Afghanistan likely sooner than later. Yet as I’ve said on many occasions there will be a significant troop presence in Iraq – about 30-40,000 troops for some time to come.

The point is that we have troops in the region where they give us a strategic advantage if Iran decides to try us with a nuclear weapons procurement.

With that in mind I see this “plan” undergoing several more changes between now and next summer.

“Did faculty members at the Army War College curtail their criticism of the Iraq war for fear of institutional retaliation?

That seems to be the bottom line in a situation I stumbled across just a few days ago. A friend passed along a 2005 e-mail note in which Steven Metz, chairman of a department at the Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute, urged several of his colleagues to blackball me because of my coverage of the Iraq war. “We all need to avoid Tom like the plague,” Professor Metz advised.

I was surprised by this in particular because the last time I heard from Metz last year, he was asking me to blurb his new book on the Iraq war, which I did, as you can see here. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but it is more than a little disappointing for him to denounce me privately and then turn around and ask me for help selling his book publicly.

But more important is what Metz’s note may say about the state of academic freedom at the Army War College. When I asked him why he would urge his colleagues to shun me, he quickly apologized via e-mail and explained that it had to do with the political climate at the college back then. In fact, he explicitly blamed the strained relationship between the Army and its civilian overseers under then-Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. “[A]t the time — with growing sensitivity to criticism by Rumsfeld and the Army’s attempt to make peace with Rumsfeld after Shinseki left — several members of SSI had been verbally flogged after interviews with you when the stories portrayed [sic] as more critical of the administration than we intended. We were worried about what might happen to SSI, even frightened for the organization. Many of us, including me, simply stopped doing interviews. Luckily, the climate eventually changed.”

Metz went on to tell me that he now thinks he was wrong to tone down his criticism of the conduct of the Iraq war back then. “Today I believe that I should have been more critical of the unfolding disaster in Iraq and simply borne the consequences. As government employees, we walk a fine line between being critics and ‘part of the team.’ In 2005 I, at least, lost the sense of balance.”

Maybe it is time for the commandant of the War College to issue a statement emphatically reaffirming his institution’s commitment to academic freedom?”

Or for Ricks to get a clue. Academics employed at the War College do not – as a part of their agreements with their employment – have a right to critique ongoing US policy or conduct of war. It’s not Haavard. Metz might have handled it in the wrong way, but he was right to ward fellow members off of Ricks, who’s antiwar ramblings bordered on the hysterical at times.

Nevertheless, it’s moot. We won the war and lefty journalists like Ricks just can’t stand that fact.

Technorati Tags: Thomas Ricks, Iraq, Liberals

“BAGHDAD, Dec. 31 — The walls of the majestic Republican Palace in Baghdad’s Green Zone have been stripped bare. The vaults that secured American cash and classified documents are gone, and the cement blast walls that protected the front entrance were taken down this week. The U.S. military dining facility inside what was once the American Embassy served its last meal New Year’s Eve.

“This is the end of the world as we know it,” said Sgt. 1st Class Patrick McDonald, 47, who co-authored a guide to historic sites in the Green Zone. “It’s not like everyone is shredding documents and fleeing Saigon. But we are stepping away from a building.

Saddam Hussein had the palace compound’s main building decorated with giant busts of himself to demonstrate his hold over Iraq. After the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, the palace came to symbolize the American role in the country, first as the headquarters of the U.S. occupation authority and later the U.S. Embassy. American civilians and troops held “salsa night” dances around the pool behind the palace before retiring to trailers sheathed in sandbags.

When the clock struck midnight on Wednesday, the U.S. returned the palace to the Iraqi government and relinquished formal control over the Green Zone, a heavily fortified six-square-mile enclave on the Tigris River where key U.S. and Iraqi bureaucracies are situated.

The handover is a sign of the shrinking footprint and influence of the United States in a country where it has lost thousands of lives and spent billions of dollars. For many Iraqis, the handover represents a significant step forward in their gradual reassertion of dominion over their own affairs. “

Of course we could expect the writers at the Washington Compost to paint this as a release from tyranny, and the end of a failed effort. That is again dishonest and disnorable to the sacrifice of our troops. Had it not been for their efforts there would be no such “liberation”. The war was a success and nothing can change that fact.

Sgt. McDonald mentions that shameful day in Saigon when the US completed a retreat from the approaching communist north, precipitated by Democrats pulling the funding for the war their party began. Democrats tried to do that again in 2007 but were rebuffed. No doubt they’ll now take false credit for this abounding success now, but we know who deserves the thanks. That would be President Bush, General Patraeus and the men and women of our military.

Gateway Pundit with more.