PDA

View Full Version : Democrats and Vietnam: An Unhealthy Obsession



thedrifter
04-11-04, 07:37 PM
April 11, 2004


Democrats and Vietnam: An Unhealthy Obsession
Joe Mariani

There can be no doubt that there's something phenomenally wrong with the Left, when they seem to be obsessed with the only war the United States could ever be said to have lost. Their fascination with America's moment of disillusionment, defeat, and disgrace -- despite the fact that we actually won, militarily speaking -- has discolored their political stance for over thirty years. Any time there's an American in uniform with a gun anywhere in the world, it seems as though Democrats just cannot wait to begin asking the inevitable question, "Is it Vietnam yet?"

Within days of our attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Left was already rushing to compare it to Vietnam. "It's been nearly two months since the September 11 mass-slaughters, and the U.S. response more and more resembles that period when America was beginning its long slide into Vietnam," wrote Bernard Weiner, a professor of government and international politics at Western Washington University and San Diego State University. Kabul, the capital city of Afghanistan, fell just two days after that anniversary. (So much for Vietnam.) On 1 April 2003, he wrote about Iraq -- only two weeks after the fight began -- using nearly identical words: "Is it just me or is there a smell of Vietnam in the desert air?" Baghdad fell just over a week later. (Answer: it was just you.) The every-war-is-Vietnam meme has spread throughout the Left like a malevolent virus, until every minor setback facing our troops anywhere in the world is almost gleefully hailed as "the new Vietnam," though most of our armed forces weren't even born when Vietnam ended.

Why the fascination with Vietnam? Simple: it's the only war the LEFT ever won. And they did it -- intentionally or not -- by propping up our enemy and demoralising our own troops with vehemently anti-American rhetoric. In his book Telltale Hearts: The Origins and Impact of the Vietnam Anti-War Movement, Adam Garfinkle of the Foreign Policy Research Institute detailed how the anti-war protesters actually prolonged the Vietnam War. Their strident and visible attacks on American resolve both damaged the morale of American troops and spurred the North Vietnamese to fight on. In his 1985 memoir about the war, North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap credited protest groups -- like John Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- for helping him achieve victory. Now, the Left is doing it again.

Once again, the spectre of Vietnam is being raised -- and the memory those who fought and died there is being ruthlessly exploited -- by those who want to ignore America's successes in Iraq and see us fail, all in the name of political gain. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Ma) stated that "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam, and this country needs a new president." It's no coincidence that it's an election year, and that Kennedy is John Kerry's biggest supporter. Given the fact that Kennedy's brother JFK sent 15,000 troops into Vietnam to preserve democracy in 1961, it's surprising that he would use such a comparison as an insult. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa), quavered, "Surely I am not the only one who hears echoes of Vietnam in this development." What's most disturbing to me, however, is the fact that Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of the small but violent group of Iranian-backed anti-American religious fanatics attacking Coalition troops in Baghdad, made a statement which eerily echoed those of Senators Kennedy and Byrd, and on the same day.

"I call upon the American people to stand beside their brethren, the Iraqi people, who are suffering an injustice by your rulers and the occupying army, to help them in the transfer of power to honest Iraqis," al-Sadr said in a statement from his office in the southern city of Najaf. "Otherwise, Iraq will be another Vietnam for America and the occupiers."

Meanwhile, John Kerry attacked President Bush for shutting down al-Sadr's revolution-inciting newspaper Hawza, calling it "a legitimate voice in Iraq" (before taking back the word "legitimate"). Kerry then went on to say of al-Sadr, "he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment." Sort of?

When the Democrats and Islamo-fascist terrorists are singing from the same hymn book, and the Democratic candidate for President can't even recognise terrorist groups as terrorists, how can anyone help but wonder who's really on America's side?


http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/mariani_20040411.html


Ellie

namgrunt
04-12-04, 03:50 AM
What an intriguing concept. The Vietnam war is the only one the LEFT won! I must confess I've never heard it stated that way before, and find it is a correct assessment. The Left is looking for a second victory now, but there is a difference. Mainland USA, CONUS, the Big Apple, Our Town, has been attacked, and innocents killed without mercy. To sell their POV, the Left must tear down the leadership which has brought us this far.

Hostages are taken by the al-Sadhr gang. Threats have been made, in hopes we will fold up like the Spanish people did after their bombings. If we do, that won't stop the attacks, it will just embolden the attackers to do worse. The Left loses either way.

usmc4669
04-12-04, 09:19 AM
We could bring all of our troops home from around the world. Give in to the terrorist, like most of our so called allies have done. Line our borders with our Military, put up air-to-air missiles and bring down any planes crossing our borders, let no commercial airlines leave or enter this country, cut off all ties with the other countries of the world, be isolated from them. Deport all that are not US citizens and those who were born in any Islamic country, deport all French, Germans, Russians, Spaniards, anyone who don't agree with our thinking. Tell the world that we will use WMD if they even think of attacking the United States.

Now what would become of the United States if we did a stupid thing like this? We as a Nation could never survive, we need the support of the other countries (not all of them) raw materials to produce our produces that we depent on, so what is the answer?


Meanwhile, John Kerry attacked President Bush for shutting down al-Sadr's revolution-inciting newspaper Hawza, calling it "a legitimate voice in Iraq" (before taking back the word "legitimate"). Kerry then went on to say of al-Sadr, "he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment." Sort of?

Send John Kerry and Ted Kennedy to Iraq to meet with the terrorist, he Kerry, can promise them what ever they want, knowing that he will flip flop and they won't get anything but a lot of hot words.