As expected, George W. Bush went on the offensive against his critics with a classic tactical move: he pre-emptively accused his critics of doing what he has actually done, leaving them in the unenviable position of responding "No, that's what YOU did." He said his critics are trying to change history, when that is what he is trying to do. (Didn't I tell you he would try that?) The facts, of course, demonstrate that the president has lied repeatedly, and then lied repeatedly about lying repeatedly. You would think that people would start to remember this stuff, but apparenlt no one is doing any THINKING at all.

"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges," the president said in his combative Veterans Day speech.

So, the FIRST thing he does is brings "the global war on terror" into the Iraq War. It might be hard to remember, but if you bother to check THE RECENT PAST you will rediscover that Saddam Hussein had absolutely, positively, nothing to do with terrorism at all. Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Saddam Hussein did not support or train or cooperate with terrorist organizations. Iraq and the war on terror were two totally different issues.

Of course, NOW that America has invaded and destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq, terrorists have moved in and Iraq is NOW a center for terrorism. That is a direct consequence of George W. Bush's bumbling attempts at regime change and nation building. If you want to blame ANYONE for the terrorist presence in Iraq, blame the right person: George W. Bush.

As for "false charges," that is simply a baldfaced lie. All of the charges that Iraq intelligence was cherry-picked and selectively presented to Congress is a matter of record. Evidence of weapons of mass destruction was improperly or simply NOT vetted, and any indications that the weapons did not exist was discounted. The Secretary of State actually prostituted himself to the false evidence and misrepresented satellite photos to the United Nations. All of this is a matter of record. It was in all the papers.

"Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and mislad the American people about why we went to war," Bush said.

He said those critics have made those allegations although they know that a Senate investigation "found no evidence" of political pressure to change the intelligence community's assessments related to Saddam's weapons program.

If you read that carefully enough, you'll discover that the president is not exactly lying (in this one instance), but just scrupulously avoiding telling the truth. In point of fact, the RELEASE of SELECTIVE intelligence was manipulated, which did persuade lawmakers in both parties to support a war that was insupportable based on ALL of the evidence—you know, including the stuff that cast serious doubts on the stuff that was used. And you can just write me off as a cynic, but the findings of a Repubican-controlled Senate investigation that "found no evidence" of political pressure is not a declaration that there was no pressure, nor is it a declaration that the WMD house-of-cards assessment wasn't built upon flawed and false intelligence to begin with.

The president said the Democratic lawmakers also know that the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing Saddam's development and possession of weapons of mass destruction.

"More than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," Bush said.

Again, it is important to recall that the United States pushed the UN to pass many of those resolutions, many of the resolutions the US pushed were rejected by the UN, and in the end, the UN did NOT feel that there was enough evidence to support action against Iraq and Saddam Hussein. The UN's own weapons inspectors were in the very process of proving there were no WMDs in Iraq when the United States ordered them out and invaded the country—probably specifically to keep them from showing there was no WMD threat.

And once again, the intelligence provided to the "more than 100 Democrats" in the House and Senate was flawed and cherry-picked specifically to convince them to support the administration. If the president wanted to blame the Democrats for flip-flopping, he would have had to provide them with ALL the available intelligence and allowed them to come to the same conclusions he and his warhawks did. He did not, and they did not.

The president's remarks at the Tobyhanna Army Depot were part of the administration's effort to bolster waning U.S. public support for the war in which at least 2,059 U.S. troops have died. Bush offered a forceful defense of the war in Iraq, saying it is the central front in the war on terror and that extremists are trying to establish a radical Muslim empire extending from Spain to Indonesia.

"We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory," he said Friday.

Rah! Rah! Rah! Go team! One thing I'll say for Bush's speechwriters, they know how to cater to their audience. What you do for an audience of soldiers is emotionally declare:"We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory." The implication, of course, is that his opponents would force the US to back down, give in, and accept less. We have invaded a sovereign nation, deposed its rightful ruler, and destroyed its infrastructure. American troops are now an OCCUPYING FORCE in a country that does not look favorably on their presence. There is no good way for this fiasco to end. But there are any number of bad and worse ways.

Iraq is only part of the war of terror because the Bush invasion made it possible for terrorists to get a foothold in that country. As long as we are occupying Iraq, the terrorists will remain, become entrenched, and grow stronger. The Iraqi people will side less and less with the occupying forces and more and more with their crazy Islamic "brothers." Instead of eradicating terrorists, the Bush administration's policies have emboldened them and given them new allies. The Iraq misadventure is indefensible and the sooner we can extricate ourselves from it, the better off the whole world will be.