Here's a clue Gordon, Democrats will not vote for you even if you adopt their talking points. Earl, you've unintentionally made a case for STAYING in Iraq. I realize it was unintended, but I know you think you're the smartest guy in D.C., so I'm sure you'll figure out how to spin it.
Here's part of Earl's blog entry here: "Ultimately, we will leave, ultimately, it will be extraordinarily unpleasant, if not awful. The Bush administration's mismanagement has broken Iraq and American public is not willing to allow the further sacrifice o four brave soldiers--who have done all that can be expected of them --and the waste of even more of our scarce resources,so in demand at home and in other places around the world. [the US apparently isn't worth our time but someplace else IS?]
"This is now about making the best of a bad situation; we are going to leave Iraq before it's fixed [Earl's emphasis]. It will be painful for everybody: the innocent Iraqi victims who will get caught up in the maelstrom, as well as Americans who will be less safe for years, if not generations, to come.
Smith declares Iraq civil war and wants to bail:
"I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd...
But, we have no business being a policeman in someone else's civil war. So I welcome the Iraq study group but I'd rather do it quicker rather than later. Whatever it is, it will not be pretty. I am looking for answers but the current course is unacceptable to this U.S. Senator....
I'm afraid rather than leveling with the American people saying this was going to be a decade-long conflict because of the ancient hatreds that exist in that part of the world, that we tried to win with too few troops in too fast a time.let us fight the war on terror more intelligently than we have, because we have fought this war in a very lamentable way.
I would have never voted for this conflict had I reason to believe that the intelligence we had was not accurate. It was not accurate, but that is history. Now we must find a way to make the best of a terrible situation at a minimum of loss of life for our brave fighting men and women."
Friday, December 08, 2006
UNINTENTIONAL:Bow Tie Blumenauer Makes Case for STAYING in Iraq and Gordon Smith Bails Out
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
The Stay and Payers are not going to like this Senator Smith. When it comes to the Iraq fiasco, common sense is not welcome on this blog.
Obviously Sen. Gordon Smith can and must immediately be categorized in the harshest manner possible, perhaps even labeled as a 'Surrender Monkey' for his blatant disregard for the President's proven winning attitude with Iraq.
Interesting how all these guys in the GOP only find it in themselves to be honest when it no longer matters. So, Senator, where were your objections until now?
I'd be interested to see what kind of comments Gordon Smith was making during the 2004 elections. You know, something that might have to do with flip flopping...
Ahhhh, yup, here we go. Can't believe you didn't use this one Vic -
"It's not Gordon Smith's fault that he looks French."
One afternoon, while I was having lunch with my co-workers, we were discussing politics. Someone suggested I run for office (either they were being sarcastic or they liked my ideas). I stated that I would be made to look bad, because I would be seen as a flip flop, because I change my mind when I have new facts (new data).
I was then told that all I now need is a few special interests to back me up, and I could be just like the rest of the politicians.
Seriously,
Why do we give politicians such a hard time when they change their mind? Shouldn't we all be open to changing our minds when we are presented with new data?
I like Gordon Smith. I actually voted for him, and I don't often vote republican.
r=
This might be of some value. I didn't read through much of it, but you might find something.
vote smart Gordon Smith public statements
I am quite confused about the sudden change in the wind, it looks like the weather vane is pointing left, and the right is looking like an arid plain with no life anymore. I will be voting Democratic on the next elections, they are showing good ideas and will help get rid of terrorism without giving all my tax dollars to a bunch of George Bushes friends. And Victoria comment about honesty before an election is true, she just made me realize George Bush LIED to us before both of the last presidential elections.
Maybe he should recall Bob Packwood. When a Republican climbs in bed with the left, sooner or later they will pull the covers ff of you and leave you out in the cold.
Many are buying into the fallacies being printed and broadcast about this war without realizing the dire results awaiting us once we surrender again.
As has been said by others, we have a President and Military at war and a nation at peace.
If you think the enemy can be appeased, look at the few (so far) actions that have happened here and stopped. A Jewish woman murdered in Seattle, a group of students ran down by an SUV and now, a convert in Illinois arrested claiming he was set to attack a shopping mall with grenades on Dec 22. There have been others but I don't recall them right now. Sooner or later, they will succeed and who will be ready to surrender then?
Wake up. This isn't a Democrat or Republican plot, it is a movement of radicals who believe they are destined to rule the world.
Considering Smith's recent comments might be political suicide (if he stays a republican) maybe they are true (or at least he believes they are). What are his motives, if it is not to tell the truth?
He can't be trying to win over Democrats because he has to win the primary (in his own party) before non-Republicans can even vote for him. He knows his stance isn't going to be popular among Republicans. So what motive can he possibly have besides honesty?
I don't get it.
(See if I ever vote for a Republican again ;-).
Sockpuppet, you need to consider your purpose, if you are to know what to say. Good luck figuring it out.
The best question I've read to date about the war came from one of our troops in Iraq while discussing with departing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, during his surprise and unannounced visit there this week, Why am I more patient than someone sitting at home in Fort ‘Livingroom’?”
Most Republicans duck out in times of military service - See Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilley, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and many others.
Yet, these same chicken-hawks support communism. They all support WalMart, which buys its products from Communist CHINA!!! CHINA is COMMUNIST!
Where is McCarthy when we need him?
unpatriot, maybe you should do your homework before spouting off.
Bush did serve as a fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard and did volunteer for Viet Nam service, but was denied due to lack of flight experience.
Rumsfeld served in the US Navy as an aviator from 1954 to 1957, tranferring into the ready reserve where he served until 1975, transferring into the stanby reserve which he retired from in 1989 with the rank of Captain (Naval).
While others did not serve, none of them dodged the draft writing a letter to the one they used to avoid serving with words of "loathing the military," then running for President.
Of those that did serve, none spent a scant 3 months in combat amassing 3 Purple Hearts without spending a single night in a hospital or requesting their medals for standard duty and self-inflicted wounds, then making a big deal of throwing the medals away only to have them seen hanging on his office wall when running as an anti-war candidate did not work for him. Nor did any of them have to have their discharge "reviewed by a board of officers" before being granted an Honorable Discharge, six years after the time they would have normally ETS'd.
Members of both parties took draft deferments in their day and many did not ever get called, either. That isn't draft dodging for either party.
Please try doing a little homework before spewing talking points from 5 years ago.
unpatriot, maybe you should do your homework before spouting off.
Bush did serve as a fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard and did volunteer for Viet Nam service, but was denied due to lack of flight experience.
Rumsfeld served in the US Navy as an aviator from 1954 to 1957, tranferring into the ready reserve where he served until 1975, transferring into the stanby reserve which he retired from in 1989 with the rank of Captain (Naval).
While others did not serve, none of them dodged the draft writing a letter to the one they used to avoid serving with words of "loathing the military," then running for President.
Of those that did serve, none spent a scant 3 months in combat amassing 3 Purple Hearts without spending a single night in a hospital or requesting their medals for standard duty and self-inflicted wounds, then making a big deal of throwing the medals away only to have them seen hanging on his office wall when running as an anti-war candidate did not work for him. Nor did any of them have to have their discharge "reviewed by a board of officers" before being granted an Honorable Discharge, six years after the time they would have normally ETS'd.
Members of both parties took draft deferments in their day and many did not ever get called, either. That isn't draft dodging for either party.
Please try doing a little homework before spewing talking points from 5 years ago.
When did Gordon Smith start sounding like AlGore?
coboble said...
"I stated that I would be made to look bad, because I would be seen as a flip flop, because I change my mind when I have new facts (new data)."
No, if you were a Republican you would be called a liar for having made a decision based on what you thought was good data at the time.
If a Democrat, you could blame the source of your information and say you were lied to. Best bet is to never make up your mind or make a decision. Calling for a study, bi-partisan task force, resolution of condemnation or proposing even more rules to be ignored leaves you off the hook because your intentions were good.
Be thankful patriot. The skies of Texas were safe during the Vietnam War. Not one successful attack by the Vietnamese Air Force. I also understand that Bush's secret mission to Alabama was also a success.
Not one of the new crop of Republican Congressmen have served in the US Military. N'uff said.
Lew,
Bush didn't fly because they were phasing out the P102's he was qualified to fly (As memory serves).
Thanks Cramdown for a selective piece of information.
People pretending to be me or bomb throwing about sock puppets will be deleted.
The left leaning sites I read are bashing Smith as well. One even took a picture from a right leaning site to use on their blog.
Doesn't anyone (besides me) believe this guy might really be on the level, up front with what he really believes, and trying to do the right thing?
This can NOT just be a political move, it is political suicide.
Does anyone else see (or even understand)what I am trying to say here?
I'm sorry, I forgot: Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein when Reagan was funding him with weapons and training.
McCain did serve as well but was attacked for not serving when he ran against Bush.
What about your support of China? If you buy Chinese products, you're supporting communism.
Unpatriot, did you forget that Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Clinton, met with and shared Champagne with North Korea's Kim Jung Il? Maybe you forgot that Al Gore, vice-president under Clinton, accepted cmapign money from the Chinese government through a group of Monks in Ca.?
If all you wish to do is point fingers, be careful as you leave three pointing right back at you.
You'll also have to supply some documentation of claims McPain didn't serve. As I recall, it was his conduct during imprisonment in N. Viet Nam that came under fire. That was from fellow POWs.
As for those who served in the incoming ranks, last I heard, Democrats have claimed nearly a clean sweep in the last elections, crammie. Do you mean they didn't serve?
As I recall, in 1992 and 1996, Military Service had nothing to do with the ability to lead the country. Care to explain what changed as both Republican candidates in those years were Decorated WW2 Veterans and the Democrat never served.
patriot,
You obviously have not looked at where the stuff you buy at Fred Meyers comes from.....China.
That claim about WalMart is worn out and applies to all stores.
Back on topic please.
Sen. Smith has said what the dems have been saying for a long time. That this is the wrong war. As more repubs find the courage to come forward and break with the administration we will see more repubs say what Sen. Smith is saying. We need to bring our troops home and we need to do that before 2008.
The ISG report pointed out what has been evident to the voters and the dems for a long time. That we are not winning this war. The administration needs to realize that we can no longer win it. Coming up with catchy slogans like "stay the course" or "new way forward" do nothing to the strategy which stays the same.
Getting rid of Rumsfeld and choosing Robert Gates who also doesn't think we are winning this war will do nothing in terms of changing the strategy. Most Americans think this war was a mistake, and they think so because they don't think it's worth the life of one young son or daughter.
We are in the middle of a horrible civil war and this is not what our troops signed up for and it's not what we signed up for as a nation. It is time for our troops to come home and it's vital that we set a date for redeployment of our troops.
Lew, when it comes to identifying new Republicans in the Congress, all of whom did not serve in the military, you may want to do a little research before you speak.
Rep.-Elect Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)
22nd District
----
Rep.-Elect Doug Lamborn (R-CO)
5th District
----
Rep.-Elect Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.)
9th District
----
Rep.-Elect Bill Sali (R-ID)
----
Rep.-Elect Peter Roskam (R-IL)
6th District
----
Rep.-Elect Tim Walberg (R-MI)
7th District
----
Rep.-Elect Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
6th District
----
Rep.-Elect Adrian Smith (R-NE)
3rd District
----
Rep.-Elect Dean Heller (R-NV)
2nd District
----
Rep.-Elect Jim Jordan (R-OH)
4th District
----
Rep.-Elect Mary Fallin (R-OK)
5th District
----
Rep.-Elect David Davis (R--TN)
1st District
cramdown,
which article of the constitution requires any elected official to serve in the military prior to being elected office, any office.
wingate,
You are right bring those losers home now.
In their place we'll send draftee's like you to win the day.
btw
bring them home and pin a loss on them how will recruting be for the military then?
Crammie, you forgot to list ALL of the NEW DEMOCRATS and their Military Service.
Just so you know, I did research it a bit and found the following;
Republican Veterans in the Senate, as of November 9, 2006:
• Robert Bennett (R-UT)
National Guard 1957-61
• Thad Cochran (R-MS)
U.S. Navy 1959-61
• Larry Craig (R-ID)
National Guard 1970-72
• Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Air National Guard 1967-73
• Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
• #Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
U.S. Army 1967-68
• James M. Inhofe (R-OK)
U.S. Army 1954-56
• Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
National Guard 1966-1972
• Richard Lugar (R-IN)
U.S. Navy 1957-60
• #John R. McCain (R-AZ)
U.S. Navy 1958-81
*POW Vietnam 1967-73
• Frank Murkowski (R-AK)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
U.S. Marine Corps (1958-62)
• Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Army Reserves 1973-86
• Arlen Specter (R-PA)
U.S. Air Force 1951-53
• #Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Army Air Corps 1943-46
• Craig Thomas (R-WY)
U.S. Marine Corps 1955-59
• #John R. Warner (R-VA)
U.S. Navy 1945-46
Marine Corps 1950-52
Marine Corps Reserves 1952-1964
• US Coast Guard 1955-57
House:
• Spencer Bachus (R-06 AL)
National Guard 1969-1971
• John Boehner (R-08 OH)
U.S. Navy 1968
• Dan Burton (R-05 IN)
U.S. Army 1957-1958
• Army Reserves 1958-1962
• Stephen E. Buyer (R-04 IN)
U.S. Army 1984-1987, 1990
Army Reserve 1980-1984, 1987-Present
• Howard Coble (R-06 NC)
Coast Guard 1952-1956, 1977-1978
Coast Guard Reserve 1960-1982
• Mike Conway (R-11 TX)
U.S. Army 1970-1972
• Geoff Davis (R-04 KY)
U.S. Army 1976-1987
• Thomas M. Davis (R-11 VA)
U.S. Army 1971-1972
Army Reserves 1972-1979
• Nathan Deal (R-09 GA)
U.S. Army 1966-1968
• John F. Duncan, Jr. (R-02 TN)
Army Reserve 1970-1987
• Terry Everett (R-02 AL)
U.S. Air Force 1955-1959
• Ernest L. Fletcher (R-06 KY)
U.S. Air Force 1974-1980
• #Rodney P. Frelinghuysen (R-11 NJ)
U.S. Army 1969-1971
• #Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-01 MD)
U.S. Marines 1964-1968
• Paul Gillmor (R-05 OH)
U.S. Air Force 1965-1966
• Louie Gohmert (R-01 TX)
U.S. Army 1977-1982
• Virgil H. Goode, Jr. (R-05 VA)
National Guard 1969-1975
• Ralph M. Hall (R-04 TX)
U.S. Navy 1942-1945
• Doc Hastings (R-04 WA)
Army Reserves 1964-1969
• David L. Hobson (R-07 OH)
National Guard 1958-1963
• #Duncan Hunter (R-52 CA)
U.S. Army 1969-1971
• #Sam Johnson (R-03 TX)
U.S. Air Force 1951-1979
• Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-03 NC)
National Guard 1967-1971
• Peter King (R-03 NY)
National Guard 1968-1973
• #John Kline (R-02 MN)
USMC 1969-1974
• Ron Lewis (R-02 KY)
U.S. Navy 1973
• John Linder (R-7 GA)
US Air Force 1967-69
• #Charlie Norwood (R-9 GA)
U.S. Army 1967-1969
• Ron Paul (R-14 TX)
U.S. Air Force 1963-1965
National Guard 1965-1968
• John E. Peterson (R-05 PA)
U.S. Army 1957
Army Reserves 1958-1963
• #Joseph R. Pitts (R-16 PA)
U.S. Air Force 1963-1969
• Ted Poe (R-2 TX)
Air Force Reserve 1970-1976
• Jim Ramstad (R-03 MN)
Army Reserves 1968-1974
• Ralph Regula (R-16 OH)
U.S. Navy 1944-1946
• Harold Rogers (R-05 KY)
National Guard 1957-1964
• Mike Rogers (R-8 MI)
US Army 1985-89
• John Shadegg (R-03AZ)
National Guard 1969-1975
• John Shimkus (R-19 IL)
U.S. Army 1980-1984
Army Reserves 1987-Present
• Cliff Stearns (R-06 FL)
U.S. Air Force 1963-1967
• Dave Weldon (R-15 FL)
U.S. Army 1981-1987
Army Reserves 1987-1992
• Ed Whitfield (R-01 KY)
Army Reserve 1967-1970
• Roger F. Wicker (R-01 MS)
U.S. Air Force 1976-1980
Air Force Reserve 1980-Present
• Heather A. Wilson (R-01 NM)
U.S. Air Force 1978-1989
*Only woman veteran in Congress.
• Joe Wilson (R-2 SC)
US Army Reserve 1972-75
• Frank R. Wolf (R-10 VA)
U.S. Army 1962-1963
Army Reserves 1963-1967
• C.W. Bill Young (R-10 FL)
National Guard 1948-1957
• Don Young (R-All AK)
U.S. Army 1955-1957
I'd be a bit careful making any fuss over any that served in the reserves or the guard, I also have the list of Democrat Veterans effective the same date and a considerable number of them also served in the reserves or the guard.
Thank you Lew and Cramdown, now I can take some comfort in knowing that our Congress has a few members with some Military experience. There was a time when I thought all of this "left is better than right" followed by "No, right is better than left" arguing was pointless; but this time it has provided me with useful information.
Was the part of Victoria's show tonight, where she covered the Gordon Smith speech, new? Or was the entire show just a merge of repeats?
(I liked the piece on Gordon, the last helicopter and such; it was an interesting effective presentation, even if it is old news).
If Gordon thought this war was going to be short, maybe it is because Rumsfield claimed this at one point (I believe he said 6 months).
The soundbite the lamestream media uses against Rumsfeld is:
"And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy, Feb 7, 2003.
What is conveniently left out is:
"Depending on what happened and what the circumstance in the country was would determine how long and what role the military would have to play. Clearly the goal would be to go in and see that what resulted was better than what was there beforehand," adding, [the United States] "simply has to be willing to stay there as long as is necessary to see that that is done, but not one day longer."
In a sense, though, he was right. Saddam was deposed swiftly, but the post war hasn't gone as well as expected. Many reasons can be given from the administration to looking deep enough into their crystal ball to the outright opposition that has emboldened the enemy and convinced them they will win.
Smith has every right to change his mind, as does anybody. But, if was elected due to his support of the war, I feel he owes it to his constituents to provide a good reason why. Something better than Democrat party talking points.
The Bush lied canard is tiring. Quotes from many Democrats from before Bush was even a candidate are recorded saying much the same claims and citing the same intelligence Bush didn't have until he became President.
Personally, I long for the days when America wanted to win the wars we fought.
It is sad that this Administration has put us in a position where surrender is an option.
"You break it, you own it."
Personally, I long for the days when America had competent leadership to win the wars we fought.
Mark my words. There will be little if any change in the Iraq situation by the end of Bush’s term. The Republicans will take another thumping in the 2008 general election and Bush will simply leave the mess for the next administration.
My suggestion is that we then install Bush as president of Iraq. House him in one of Saddam’s palaces and give him a shotgun to shoot into the air. This will make him happy as he always wanted to be a dictator.
I disagree Nimlo. There is going to be much change before the end of Bush’s term whether Bush is part of it or not. The facts revealed by Democrat hearings and investigations into the conduct of the war are going to shock the American people. Bush cannot stay the course, and he knows it.
We have much to be thankful and hopeful for since the November election. The stubborn mule has been hit between the eyes with a two-by-four. We now have his attention.
threlfeld,
Are these facts you already know to be true, or are you guessing?
Lew,
Why is there a problem with the use of that sound bite? Why are they the lame stream media to you?
It is a real sound bite, the stuff was really said. It really does show how unaware our leadership was of the reality of what would happen.
(I am not yet ready to call anyone a liar, just mistaken).
My belief, is that the political party junk has gotten so bad, that our best hope is to elect leaders which do NOT belong to either of the two major parties.
(on the off topic subject of boycotts and Walmart and China, this discussion exists on Patriot's page and on mine. I would love to discuss this, but not here.)
It is sad that this Administration has put us in a position where surrender is an option.
Sadder still that the Democrats have called for surrender almost from the get go, in both Iraq and Afghanistan (the battle they claim they support in this war).
I long for the days when America had competent leadership to win the wars we fought.
You mean, like Truman in Korea, Johnson in Viet Nam, Carter in Iran, and Clinton in Iraq, Kosovo, and Somalia?
I'm sure happy Clinton got our troops home from Kosovo by Christmas, arent you?
No leader, from either party, can be an effective leader when faced with a concerted effort to undermine their administration to politicize defense.
Why is there a problem with the use of that sound bite? Why are they the lame stream media to you?
It is a real sound bite, the stuff was really said.
The "problem" with the quote is context. While he said he "doubted" it would take much longer, he also went on the state more, which doesn't get quoted.
They are the lamestream media to me because of their incessant bias, mostly to the left. They are the major news outlets and carry a responsibility to report facts, not make up claims, slant the news either way or manipulate public opinion.
For example, can you point me to any article from ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Chicago Times, The Los Angeles Times or another mainstream media that is either pro-Bush or even pro-Troops in the last six , nearly seven years? Can you give any articles from them that show any progress or good news coming out of Iraq?
To date, that challenge has elicited on response, that Time made Bush Man of the Year in 2004 (MOTY isn't always pro, by the way).
I don't like double standards, for either party. yet, Bush is declared a draft dodger almost daily because he served in the Air National Guard, yet Senator Christopher Dodd, who made pro-statements about a former Klansman and wasn't drug onto the carpet by the media, after they raised hell about Trent Lott making a favorable statement about an aging Republican who was a segregationist too, way back when, and who is currently traveling to Syria to talk with those who appear to be supporting terror, served in the Reserves from 1969 to 1975. Why isn't Dodd also a draft dodger for serving in the guard as did Bush and even Dan Quayle, who was also accused of dodging the draft, yet, the only one who actually did dodge the draft, received accolades for it, Clinton!
As for political parties, as I've said before, I'm a conservative first and Republican second. In my youth, I was a conservative Democrat, up until Carter slithered into office. If Republicans don't return to conservatism, I'll drop them as I did the Democrats and join whoever is the most conservative and try to elevate a third party.
Since I don't live in Oregon, I cannot vote for or against Smith, but I find little conservatism in him, especially lately.
Note also, in the last election, Democrats that won, many gave talks as if they were moving closer to conservatism and fooled a lot of people. Whether or not they wake up and see how liberals hoodwinked the country, remains to be seen.
Bush repeats the mistakes of Vietnam:
1. Underestimating the enemy.
2. Deceiving the American public about how badly the war is going.
3. The Bush administration, like the Johnson and Nixon administrations, blames the media’s negative coverage for plunging popular support of the war. Yet the nature of the press is that it would rather cover extraordinary negative events, such as fires and plane crashes, than more mundane positive developments. Vietnam demonstrated that normal media coverage of mistakes in war could undermine the war effort. The Bush administration should have expected such predictable media coverage.
4. Artificial government statistics cannot be used to measure progress in a counterinsurgency war.
5. The initial excessive use of force in counterinsurgency warfare instead of a plan to win hearts and minds
6. Failed “search and destroy” tactics belatedly gave way to the “inkblot” approach of clearing and holding ground.
7. “Iraqization” of the war parallels the unsuccessful “Vietnamization” in the 1970s. The Nixon administration never fully explained how the less capable South Vietnamese military could defeat the insurgency when the powerful U.S. military had failed. The same problem exists in Iraq.
8. As in Vietnam, there has been no “date certain” for withdrawal of U.S. forces. Such an indefinite commitment of U.S. forces convinces more Iraqis that the United States is an occupier that needs to be resisted.
9. Retention of incompetent policymakers. Lyndon Johnson retained Robert McNamara, the inept architect of the Vietnam strategy, as Secretary of Defense until McNamara himself turned against his own war. Bush kept the bungling Donald Rumsfeld on too long in the same position.
10.Most important of all, starting a war with another country for concocted reasons, which did not hold up under scrutiny. In a republic, the lack of a compelling rationale for sending men to die in a distant war can be corrosive
for the morale of the troops and public support back home.
Reaping what you sow.
ungrate, the main problem with your analysis is that we had Viet Nam won after decimating the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong in their failed and ill conceived Tet of '68 Offensive.
But, what was under estimated was the enemy within our own camp, the anti-war left. After Cronkite announced the North had won Tet of '68, which even shocked General Vo Ngyuen Giap, everything they did was aimed and inciting furor within the ranks of the enemy within America.
That prolonged the war by at least 5 years and nearly 40,000 more American lives.
North Vietnamese leaders credit the American anti-war left with their victory.
Today, we see the same anti-american opposition from the left and the terrorists are playing it the same way, knowing the American people on the left have no stomach for the fight.
Force our troops out before the fight is finished this time, however, and expect to see them on our streets one day. This one isn't a regional war, it's over world domination.
I believe that the historians have put to rest the lie that we "won" in Vietnam.
“Today, we see the same anti-american opposition from the left and the terrorists are playing it the same way, knowing the American people on the left have no stomach for the fight.”
Oh really? Where are the mass demonstrations? Where were the anti-war candidates in the last presidential election. Where are the cuts in funding for the troops. I did not know that Cindy Sheehan was so powerful. The left may want to thank you for your exaggeration of its influence, but at the end of the day, a Republican President and a rubberstamp Republican Congress have not produced a victory. I thought that being a conservative was being accountable. Your whining excuses are tiresome and meritless.
I am embarrassed that we need an Iraq study group to advise a president who cannot figure it our himself and cannot get the job done.
“Force our troops out before the fight is finished this time, however, and expect to see them on our streets one day. This one isn't a regional war, it's over world domination.”
You are right, Iraqis may be on our streets soon. There are 1.5 million Iragi refugess as a result of the fiasco and many are applying for admission to the US on the basis of refugee status.
loyal,
So you think the President is supposed to be able to figure this out himself, along with all the other issues, and not have advisory groups? Why? I am glad George is not that arrogant.
I think we owe it to the Iraq people, who are on our side, to take them out with us if we leave before restoring reasonable order.
Can we absorb them?
Population density is way lower in the US than in many countries.
We can always use more potential tax payers.
Yes, ingrate, 'historians' that cannot, or will not, read the words of the former enemy have laid it to rest, or rather, ignored the facts staring them in the face.
As they are doing with the WOT, it's ignore anything that doesn't fit with the hate America first agenda of the laft.
Loyal,
You forgot the biggest enemy to the Presidents in Iraq as in Vietnam: the US media.
You should find it shameful that they're more willing to listen to the insurgents than our own military and progress there.
See previous posts about Hezbolloywood, the fake sunni burning stories, et al, if you're not sure what I'm talking about.
"(T)here is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq" by the U.S. military. "The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases," Iraq Study Group.
Post a Comment