Democrats Will Ensure Iraq Is Another Vietnam

[thedrifter]

Democrats Will Ensure Iraq Is Another Vietnam
By Doug Patton
November 20, 2006

A lot of voters in the recent midterm elections were not yet born when President Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace, taking with him a great many good and decent Republican members of Congress. The election of 1974 gave carte blanche to Democrats, most of whom were salivating to yank the nation to the left, socially, economically and militarily. For those of us who remember those post-Watergate days, 2006 has an eerily familiar feel to it.

In 1974, as that anti-war Congress prepared to take control of the national purse strings, the United States of America was engaged in a decades-long struggle with international communism. The Johnson and Nixon administrations had told us that the central front in that struggle was located in the jungles of Vietnam, where thousands of my generation had already lost their lives fighting a war they had not been allowed to win.

In 2006, as Nancy Pelosi and her current crop of Democrats prepare to take power in Congress, we are locked in a decades-long struggle against international terrorism. The central front of that struggle is said to be the cities and the deserts of Iraq, where thousands of my sons' generation have laid down their lives in a war they, too, have not been allowed to win.

In 1974, Americans were weary from years of slaughter in Southeast Asia. It was an undeclared war in which our forces had never lost a battle but were never allowed to finish the job. In 2006, America is again weary of war, not because we don't believe it is important but rather because, once again, the best and bravest of a generation appear to be caught in a military meat grinder, with victory nowhere in sight.

One of the first acts of the 94th Congress, which gaveled itself arrogantly into power in January 1975, was to de-fund the war in Vietnam. As James Robbins has opined in his recent post-election piece titled "Back to the Seventies," posted at National Review Online, the 110th Congress likely will be more subtle in its approach to de-funding the war in Iraq, both because of a potential presidential veto and because withdrawing financial support of our troops would, in Robbins words, "appear reckless to the large portion of the electorate that was not motivated by antiwar fervor."

However, there are signs that the liberal base of the Democratic Party will not wait long for the payback they think they deserve. Before most Americans could digest the ramifications of the congressional elections, former presidential loser extraordinaire George McGovern was on his way to Capitol Hill to inform his fellow leftist Democrats (let's just call them the "McGovern Caucus") that they should see to it that U.S. forces were withdrawn from Iraq by next June. So much for the subtle approach. This is the same George McGovern who, when he was cruising to a 49-state loss in the 1972 presidential race, once said that America should simply declare victory in Vietnam and withdraw.

This is what many of the newly elected members of Congress believe the American people want: an unconditional surrender disguised as "redeployment." Rep. John Murtha, golden boy of the anti-war media, has used just those words. Murtha, who is always identified by the press as a former Marine who fought in Vietnam, has said that U.S. forces in Iraq should be "redeployed" to Okinawa.

Democrats delighted during the campaign in comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. The McGovern Caucus of left-wing nut jobs who are still in denial about our war with Islamic terrorism, want us out of Iraq yesterday. Of course, that pesky U.S. Constitution stands in the way of their complete control of U.S. foreign policy, so there is only one way they can accomplish their goal: cut off funding. They may not succeed, but they will try, because they believe it is in their interest to ensure that Iraq does, indeed, become another Vietnam.

Ellie

[jinelson]

This makes my blood boil! The democrats served our enemy well before and they will serve our enemy again by cutting the funding. Why not it worked for them in Vietnam and gave us our first defeat. The far left liberal wing of the party is now in control and defeat is on the horizon. What scumbags the American people have choosen to lead us! Traitors all! I have always said never again not on my watch perhaps I was wrong.

[jinelson]

Democrat Deceit On Iraq

If you believe the polls, there is a frightening disconnect in American politics today. Polls show that while voters believe Iraq and the war on terror are the most important issues, they are leaning toward restoring congressional control to the party that is too arrogant and disorganized to tell us what it would do on those issues if elected.

Many of us have so often stated that Democrats don't have a plan for Iraq that I am concerned voters are either numb to it or think it's just another Republican talking point. But it is undeniably true.

Democrats have been holding their breath throughout the campaign season, praying they could hold on to an apparent lead by relying solely on their criticism of the president's policies and without revealing their hand on the war.

They had no other issues to run on, since the robustness of the Bush economy became too obvious for them to distort it, and their feint toward social conservatism was too absurd to sustain, even with the mini-explosion of isolated Republican "morality" scandals.

They also did their best to avoid national security and the war on terror, knowing that public scrutiny would highlight their unacceptably irresponsible softness on both. Beyond scandalmongering and distraction, their campaign has centered on segregating Iraq from the war on terror, then painting Bush and Republicans as wholly incompetent and immoral concerning the initiation and prosecution of that war.

Democrats have been laboring to make this a referendum on the president's performance in Iraq without regard to what they would do differently.

I'm banking on the voters' rejection of that approach and, to the extent that the congressional elections are nationalized, their refusal to roll the dice on the elusive Democrats. It would be one thing to take a chance on an agenda-less party during peacetime, but it is quite a risk to do so during wartime, especially given this party's well-known propensities against the aggressive prosecution of the war.

Nothing better illustrates the Democrats' duplicity and emptiness concerning Iraq than the manifestly contradictory statements of two of their leaders in the last few days preceding the election.

Rep. John Murtha, who probably represents the bulk of his party, reiterated his nauseating, America-denigrating contention that the United States cannot win militarily in Iraq. We must resolve this matter diplomatically, he said, meaning we must negotiate with terrorists, and we must redeploy, meaning withdraw – very, very soon.

Then, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole said that Democrats are content with losing the war in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Schumer replied indignantly, "Democrats want to win the war by changing the war strategy."

Now, should we believe Murtha or Schumer? Does Schumer really expect us to believe he has experienced a miraculous, neoconservative conversion, or is he just lip-syncing?

That's a no-brainer: Of course he isn't sincere in saying Democrats want to win in Iraq by changing the strategy in Iraq. That would put him at odds with 90 percent of the Michael-Mooreized Democratic base and with the pronouncements of his party's leadership over the last year.

Dress it up however you like, Democrats are advocating an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of sustaining their nation's security and newly formed government. Democrats have said the mission is not worth American lives and they want out – yesterday. If this is not what they want, they have perpetrated an enormous fraud on the electorate because that is what they've led us to believe.

Though Democrats don't want this to register with voters until the day after the elections, they want us to lose in Iraq knowing full well that the NIE, or National Intelligence Estimate, report of April 2006 said that such a defeat would embolden terrorists and make us more vulnerable at home.

Chuck Schumer can pretend he wants to win in Iraq until he's as blue in the face as he is on the rest of his body, but if he were really serious about that, his party would Liebermanize him, too.

Today's Democratic Party simply cannot be honest about what it stands for on the most important issue of our times. That they are even in the running for congressional control is an alarming testament to the formidability of the pressures working against America's current will to persevere in this generations-long war that has been thrust upon us.

[jinelson]

We Called Them Traitors... And Everyone Laughed
By Tom Adkins (11/20/03)

For years, conservatives claimed liberals were bent on destroying the United States. We suspected they were willing to ruin lives, even actively ruin America to gain political power and turn America into a socialist state.

We called them traitors. And everyone laughed.

We said liberals were anti-American. We said they were traitors. And we watched the evidence mount. The Rosenbergs. Whitaker Chambers. The Church Commission. The counter culture. So-called “peace protesters.” Jane Fonda. Jimmy Carter’s arrogant socialist smile. The pro-Sandinista Congress.

We called them traitors. And everyone laughed.

Democrats voted against Desert Storm. Bill Clinton kicked the terrorist can down the road, then sold rocket guidance technology to the Red Chinese in exchange for three million bucks “donated” to the DNC through Chinese front companies. Shamed Senator Robert Torricelli emasculated the CIA.

We called them traitors. And everyone laughed.

We claimed liberals were creating failure and misery, so they could build a massive welfare state to honor their hero, Karl Marx. We said they were pitting one American against another, balkanizing us into little groups. We noted liberals attacked and destroyed the morality that had preserved the individual freedom the desperately wanted to crush. And when we tried to fix what had gone terribly wrong, conservatives claimed liberals stood in the way.

We called them traitors. And everyone laughed.

We noted the lockstep media, with a left wing agenda. We warned about the failing black culture. We observed liberals would sell out anyone for an extra ounce of political mojo. When California’s congressional Democrats were caught discussing how to sabotage their state economy to get more votes, conservatives claimed this was proof of the left wing conspiracy to ruin their own people to gain political power.

We called them traitors. And everyone laughed.

We conservatives always knew that rank-and-file liberals, at best, are incredibly naïve. At worst, they’re scheming moochers, sucking off their hard-working countrymen. At best, we know liberal leaders are arrogant megalomaniacs, seeking power and control. At worst? They’re anti-American, bent on destroying the individual freedom and gathering power at any cost.

We called them traitors. And everyone laughed.

Yes, everyone laughed at us. You know, that special haughty laugh that only a sneering, smug elitist can muster when hiding their true intentions.

But then came that Senate Intelligence Committee memo, proving Democrats were plotting to attack our own President by specifically using intelligence data and security secrets, with our troops in harms way in the middle of a war. It is time to stop the music. It is time to raise the curtain. At this point, there can be no further denials. No head-scratching introspection. No politics-as-usual shoulder shrugging.

Democrats are traitors.

Sadly, Republicans have simply not mastered the art of outrage. If Republican Senators had done this to a Democrat President, it would be a super-scandal, far beyond Watergate and Whitewater. Investigations and resignations would have already happened. Movies would have been made. But Republicans are meek and mild, and make sad speeches about “disappointment” and such.

Since Republicans don’t have the guts to say what must be said, let’s allow a Democrat to say a few words. Here’s Zell Miller: "I have often said that the process in Washington is so politicized and polarized that it can't even be put aside when we're at war. Never has that been proved more true than the highly partisan and perhaps treasonous memo prepared for the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee. Of all the committees, this is the one single committee that should unquestionably be above partisan politics. The information it deals with should never, never be distorted, compromised or politicized in any shape, form or fashion. For it involves the lives of our soldiers and our citizens. Its actions should always be above reproach; its words never politicized. If what has happened here is not treason, it is its first cousin. The ones responsible--be they staff or elected or both should be dealt with quickly and severely sending a lesson to all that this kind of action will not be tolerated, ignored or excused. Heads should roll!"

So let me be the first conservative to step forward and say what must be said.

Finally, after years of suspicion and accusations, we not only found the smoking gun, we found the bullets, the target, the secret plans, and the conspirators plotting to politically assassinate a President who is guilty of protecting out nation from terrorists. Unmasked and caught red-handed, the modern Democrat is a traitor. They should be treated no differently than the Rosenbergs; tried in a court of law, convicted, and suffer the harshest punishment. Death by firing squad, preferably. On TV, if possible.

Because this is not merely a game. When you become a politician, you represent your country. You have taken an oath to defend your nation. If you rise to the level of Senator, you are theoretically the co-leader of the entire nation. When you break a law, it is magnified a thousand times, because your action can affect millions of Americans. And if you commit treason, the very survival of your nation has been compromised.

That is why it is critical that Republicans not only dig around to see who wrote the memo, they should shout to the mountaintops, from coast to coast, city to city, town to town, They should demand, seek, and find justice. And they should demand, seek, and punish.

When your nation’s survival is at stake, there is nothing to laugh about.