posted on August 24, 2007 06:58:10 AM new
GOP Senator Calls for Troop Withdrawals
Updated 8:36 AM ET August 24, 2007
By ANNE FLAHERTY
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. John Warner's call for troop withdrawals from Iraq is likely to ratchet up pressure on President Bush substantially and lend momentum to Democratic efforts to end U.S. combat.
Warner, REPUBLICAN-Va., former chairman of the Armed Services Committee and Navy secretary during the Vietnam War, said Bush should bring some troops home by Christmas. Doing so, he told reporters Thursday, would send a powerful message that the U.S. commitment in Iraq was not open-ended.
Warner says the president should get to decide when and how many troops should leave. Bush has opposed setting a date to pull out troops and contends that conditions on the ground should dictate deployments.
"I'm hopeful that this (redeployment) could lead to more emphasis on the Iraqi forces taking the major responsibility, as it relates to the internal insurgency in that country," the Virginia REPUBLICAN said.
Warner's suggestion comes as a new intelligence assessment says Iraqis have failed to govern effectively or reach the political compromises believed necessary to tamp down sectarian violence.
Overall, the report finds that Iraq's security will continue to "improve modestly" over the next six to 12 months, provided that coalition forces mount strong counterinsurgency operations and mentor Iraqi forces. But even then, violence levels will remain high as the country struggles to achieve national political reconciliation, and the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is likely to become increasingly vulnerable because of criticism from various Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions.
"The strains of the security situation and absence of key leaders have stalled internal political debates, slowed national decision-making, and increased Maliki's vulnerability" to factions that could form a rivaling coalition, the document says.
Democrats say the grim report and Warner's conclusion bolster their position that Bush should change course and start bringing troops home this fall. Party leaders this year tried to pass legislation ordering troops home this fall, but repeatedly fell short of the 60 votes needed in the Senate to pass.
"Our military has performed their duties excellently, but the purpose of the escalation in Iraq was to create a secure environment in which political change could occur, and it is clear that the Iraqi leaders have failed to make progress," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Republican leaders countered that the intelligence assessment bolsters their position that U.S. troops should stay. The report warns that limiting the mission of U.S. forces to a support role and counterterrorist operations _ as Democrats and some Republicans suggest _ would "erode security gains achieved thus far."
"The fact that Democratic leaders continue to push for precipitous withdrawal despite the significant progress our troops are making shows just how deeply invested they are in failure," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Democrats agree the military has made substantial gains in Iraq, but they say the progress made is useless if the Iraqi government is unable to take control.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on August 24, 2007 12:19:13 PM newThe fact that Democratic leaders continue to push for precipitous withdrawal despite the significant progress our troops are making shows just how deeply invested they are in failure.
Mingopig has already lost her argument without anyone with a brain posting on this thread.
.
.
.
If it's called common sense, why do so few Demomorons have it?
posted on August 24, 2007 04:32:52 PM new
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to urge President George W. Bush to cut U.S. troop levels in Iraq next year, the Los Angeles Times said on Friday, citing military and administration officials.
Marine Gen. Peter Pace, whose term as chairman expires at the end of September, is expected to contend that keeping significantly more than 100,000 troops in Iraq through next year would severely strain the military and compromise its ability to respond to other threats, the newspaper said.
The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David Petraeus, is to give his much-awaited recommendation next month on how to proceed with military operations in Iraq in a report expected to spark a firestorm of debate on the unpopular war.
The administration has been fending off calls to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and has cited gains from this year's increase of about 30,000 U.S. forces that has brought troop levels there to about 160,000.
The Times said Pace will say it is strategically important to reduce U.S. deployments in Iraq. It said Pace will likely make that recommendation privately instead of in a formal report.
A senior administration official told the Times that the Joint Chiefs in recent weeks have voiced concerns that the Iraq war has reduced the military's ability to respond to other threats, such as Iran, the newspaper said.
While the focus has been on Petraeus' upcoming recommendation, the Joint Chiefs' responsibility of ensuring the military's long-term well-being means Pace "by law, has a big role in that and he will provide his advice to the president," the newspaper quoted a senior military official as saying.
But the newspaper said given the pressure to defer to Petraeus' report, the Joint Chiefs could weaken their view to Bush.
Bush did not nominate Pace for a second term as chairman and he is to leave the position at the end of September.
posted on August 25, 2007 05:07:57 AM new
"The fact that Democratic leaders continue to push for precipitous withdrawal despite the significant progress our troops are making shows just how deeply invested they are in failure."
That's right, Stonecold. With public opinion beginning to change...they're finding themselves in a VERY tough spot. Appearing to be support OUR FAILURE in Iraq. tsk tsk tsk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OTHER THREATS?????? LOL
And here I thought the liberal argument was that Iraq WASN'T a threat. LOL And that THEY wanted MORE talks with Iran...NOT military action.
Are the cowards, the surrender against AQ in Iraq liberals, NOW changing their minds? lol
This administration and our military leaders have ALREADY BEEN talking about when to reduce the "SURGE" numbers all along. The dems are ALWAYS speaking about things that have already been done. lol kerry did the same thing when he was running for the WH. Mention things HE'D change IF he were elected, when they had ALREADY been proposed. lol I call it a day late and a dollar short. Either way....they talking about issues long after they've already been considered by the BRAVE ONES who are fighting to protect our Nation. ARE fighting against AQ....not the cowards who can only offer more TALK.
And by saying 'other threats 'and then mentioning 'Iran' does THAT mean the liberals would support actually taking action AGAINST Iran. LOL NOT a chance.
They'd be screaming about that too and will be IF we do decide to take action against Iran.
How funny and how pathetic all at the same time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on August 25, 2007 05:12:35 AM new
Oh, and by they way, our President AGAIN, recently, spoke pubically to inform the 'quitters', those who wish for us to withdraw/SURRENDER to AQ, that we WON'T BE DOING SO AS LONG AS HE IS PRESIDENT.
Maybe at some point liberals can finally GRASP that concept. It won't matter that ONE, TWO, or three republican's like warner offer SUGGESTIONS to him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on August 25, 2007 05:43:33 AM new
Republicans Retreat From Their War History
How the GOP ditched decades of hard-headed foreign policy realism
Steve Chapman | May 10, 2007
We all know that when it comes to war, Republicans are strong and resolute, while Democrats are weak and craven. We know because Republicans tell us so.
Those have been the constant GOP themes in the congressional debate over the Iraq war. House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio accused Democrats who want to mandate withdrawal by a certain date of proposing "a timetable for American surrender." They were cheering for "defeat," charged Arizona Sen. John McCain. President Bush vowed that unlike his partisan opponents, he would not "cut and run."
During last week's Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Library, Rudy Giuliani cited the 40th president as a model of fortitude in dealing with enemies. Among "the things that Ronald Reagan taught us," he declared, is that "we should never retreat in the face of terrorism."
No one present was impolite enough to mention that far from spurning retreat in the face of terrorism, the Gipper embraced it. After the 1983 terrorist bombing in Beirut, which killed 241 American military personnel, he recognized the futility of our presence in Lebanon and pulled out.
Boehner portrays himself and his colleagues as brave patriots who would never accept anything less than victory in war. But in 1993, when things got tough in Somalia, he voted for withdrawal. John McCain likewise favored "defeat" in that conflict. He opposed a timetable for withdrawal not because he wanted U.S. forces to stay but because it would take too long. Our soldiers, he insisted, should leave "as rapidly and safely as possible." Or, you could say, cut and run.
At the same time, Democrats were warning of the dangers of retreat. Among them was a senator from Massachusetts named John Kerry.
Both times, the Republicans favoring withdrawal had the right idea. In neither case was our intervention justified, and nothing at stake in Lebanon or Somalia was worth the cost in American lives.
They also favored an outcome short of victory in the Kosovo war of 1999, when the GOP-controlled House voted down a resolution supporting the president's air campaign. Most House Republicans also supported a measure calling for the withdrawal of American troops from the Balkans.
Back then, House Republican Leader Tom DeLay said, "The bombing was a mistake," and urged Clinton to "admit it, and come to some sort of negotiated end." Can you guess the title of DeLay's new book? No Retreat, No Surrender.
The truth is, Republican presidents are not known for staying the course in the face of adversity. Dwight Eisenhower ran on a promise to end the Korean war, which he did -- on terms that allowed the communist aggressors to remain in power in the North. Richard Nixon negotiated a peace agreement with the North Vietnamese government, which provided for a U.S. pullout. Gerald Ford presided over the fall of Saigon and the final, humiliating American evacuation.
In those instances, the presidents came to grips with the unpleasant truth that sometimes, you can't achieve the desired outcome without an excessive sacrifice, if at all. But when it comes to Iraq, Republicans insist we should be ready to pay any price in pursuit of a victory that has eluded us for so long. In their view, weighing the costs against the benefits, or acknowledging that we don't have a formula for success, is tantamount to appeasement.
What Republicans stood for in the past was a sober realism about the limits of our power and our good intentions. That spirit is absent today. They act as though slogans are a substitute for strategy. What they claim as steadfast resolve looks more like blind obstinacy.
It's silly to say victory is the only option unless you actually have a way to achieve it and are willing to commit the necessary resources. The administration and its allies on Capitol Hill insist that this time, they know what they're doing. But they said the same thing at every point along the way, and if they had been right, the phrase "Mission Accomplished" wouldn't be a national joke.
Maybe at last they have found the key to success. More likely, though, they are just wasting lives and money postponing the inevitable. It's terrible to lose a war. But as several Republican presidents could attest, it's even worse to persist in one you can't win.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Send this article to: Del.icio.us Digg Reddit
posted on August 25, 2007 05:49:02 AM new
And after warner offered his suggestion that approx. 5,000 troops be withdrawn....
CNS News reports:
"Thanks, but no thanks."
"Well, I think that we appreciate Senator Warner's comments," White House Deputy Spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters on Thursday. "But we will wait until Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus return from Baghdad and make their report," he added.
Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker will presents a progress report on the Iraq war to Congress and the president in mid-September, as required by law; and President Bush has said if any "course corrections" are necessary, they'll be made after that.
President Bush has so far refused to consider a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal, saying it would send the wrong message to America's enemies.
And this week, the president said any move to change Iraq political leadership must come from the Iraqi people, not politicians in Washington.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yep, it sure is GREAT having a CIC that makes the final decisions....no matter how many 'suggestions' he is given.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on August 25, 2007 05:55:56 AM new
Poll: Majority Of Iowa Republicans Wants Out Of Iraq In Six Months
By Greg Sargent | bio
Here's an interesting number buried in a new poll of Iowa voters
by the GOP firm Strategic Vision:
4. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (REPUBLICANS Only)
Yes 51%
No 39%
Undecided 10%
Yep -- a majority of Iowa Republicans wants all the troops out of Iraq in six months.
Perhaps this partly explains why the most visible pro-war Repubican -- John McCain -- is in fourth place in the state. The poll finds that Mitt Romney is leading the GOP pack with 31%, with Fred Thompson in second (15%), Rudy Giuliani in third (13%) and McCain with a paltry eight percent.
posted on August 25, 2007 05:59:01 AM new
We're going BACKWARDS again....MAY?? lol
So typical of liberals. Just can't live in 'today' nor the reality of TODAY....which HAS changed, of course, since MAY.
===========
"We all know that when it comes to war, Republicans are strong and resolute, while Democrats are weak and craven. We know because Republicans tell us so."
No it's known because of the liberals actions....not because of what the Republicans SAY. LOL
THEY voted to send us to war. When things got tough and even to this day....they're calling for our SURRENDER when things are turning around in Iraq.
And THEY don't have the GUTS to stop funding the war...but they sure TALK about it a lot. Let's see we're EIGHT months into their control on our Congress....and they still don't have the balls to stop funding the war. So NOW, they're HANGING on everything REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING....lol...
They're such GREAT whiners.
Don't blame the Republicans because the VOTERS are making note of the liberals LACK of action. FACTS can be SEEN, most people can SEE that....aside from some BLIND liberals. lol
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on August 25, 2007 06:21:22 AM new
PatriotPost:
DEMOCRATS CHANGE POSITION ON IRAQ
[b]A sure sign that the Treason Lobby is fresh out of ideas is their resort to
that last bastion of hope, "glass-half-empty" politics[/b]. In this case, now
that the Demos' "quagmire" whining has been squelched by General Petraeus'
recent counterinsurgency victories in Iraq, [b]the Left is beside itself as
to how to cast these overwhelming triumphs into abject failures[/b].
Enter "half-full-glass" politics. Specifically, because military gains---no
matter how remarkable---have not resulted in peace, love and harmony among
Iraqi's various political blocs, smooth-brains on the Left are confident
they have worthy a rationale-du-jour for "bringing the troops home" (AKA,
surrendering in Iraq). The theory is that since there has been no "political
reconciliation" (to use The Washington Post's term) among Iraqi factions,
these concrete successes mean little, if anything.
Notwithstanding its inability to survive a giggle test, this argument is
nonetheless gaining popularity among second-echelon Democrats, who feel
obligated to undermine U.S. efforts in Iraq. [b]While Democrat presidential
candidates stumble over each other to be first in the "I'm-toughest-on-terror"
line---a line each candidate must toe, if he/she ever wants the label
"President" to precede his/her name---the real yeoman's work of Planet
Democrat's inhabitants centers on dismantling efforts to further freedom
and democracy in Iraq, through whatever means possible[/b].
The Seditionists have tied their hopes for power in 2008 to U.S. failure in the Middle East, independent of the consequences.
Let's just hope America---as well as the
rest of the world---isn't forced to face those consequences.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on August 25, 2007 06:24:12 AM new
WHO is blind AND stupid?
These ARE voters
posted on August 25, 2007 05:55:56 AM new
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poll: Majority Of Iowa Republicans Wants Out Of Iraq In Six Months
By Greg Sargent | bio
Here's an interesting number buried in a new poll of Iowa
VOTERS
by the GOP firm Strategic Vision:
4. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (REPUBLICANS Only)
Yes 51%
No 39%
Undecided 10%
Yep -- a majority of Iowa Republicans wants all the troops out of Iraq in six months.
Perhaps this partly explains why the most visible pro-war Repubican -- John McCain -- is in fourth place in the state. The poll finds that Mitt Romney is leading the GOP pack with 31%, with Fred Thompson in second (15%), Rudy Giuliani in third (13%) and McCain with a paltry eight percent."""
AND: How could anyone but an idiot talk about the liberals "lack of action" and then post how they voted for the war and funding....uh, you dolt, THAT'S action.
Oh, BTW , that also PROVES that YOU think Democrats and liberals are one and the same.
posted on August 25, 2007 06:41:44 AM new
NO - polls aren't always from VOTERS....just those who are polled. Doesn't mean they actually VOTE.
It's no different than when the dems brag about having registered more young voters....and they don't actually GO vote. lol
==============
Besides that warner was against the 'surge' troops being added...and he STILL opposess
democratic legislation ordering troop withdrawals.
Sybil had better wake up rather than HANG on warners recent statement.
Funny how Republican's can't be trusted...but when just ONE, JUST ONE, has something to say.....sybil's quoting it.
The Ohio POLL means nothing. It's one state and it's a POLL.
Might think back to the "polls" that were saying kerry was going to take Bush.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
edited to add:
According to the LVSun"
Before stepping before the television cameras, Warner met with Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the president's chief adviser on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
After Warner made his ideas public - and attracted headlines suggesting he had effectively broken with the president on the war - White House officials said they reached out to Warner's staff and asked him to clarify his position.
According to an administration official, Warner's staff agreed that the story was being portrayed incorrectly as Warner splitting with the president.
----
But lol...sure got old mingo going. CLINGING to the words of a REPUBLICAN.....who'd have thunk??????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 25, 2007 06:47 AM ]
posted on August 25, 2007 07:11:44 AM new
Ha! thanks for once again proving what a liar you are by responding to my posts !
The bait always works!
You ARE in a right old tizzy aren't you, you poor lonely old thing. Just can't accept YOUR parties history of "cut and run".....
Or your worshipped god, bushit's, lack of courage or backbone when it came to fighting in Vietnam.
No, polls aren't always from voters but the ones I posted ARE
Yes, linduh , there are some repugs who can think...just because YOU disagree with them doesn't make them wrong.
AND it's not just ONE.....there's lots more who are seeing the futility of trying to "win" militarily in Iraq. AND Warner is a very powerful figure in Washington...his words carry weight....he may be ONE himself but has LOTS of influence and he IS calling for troop withdrawals.
Sad that you wish more death and mutilation on our troops forever but decent people don't....I know that's not something you could ever understand...being a paid geek for rabid neocon/Fascist warmongers who are too scared to fight themselves
"Clinging to the words of a Republican"....no, oh uneducated one, I was posting an article.....sad that you can't tell the difference.
I mean , it's not like YOU who clings to every word bushit says as the "truth" LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!
posted on August 27, 2007 03:34:43 AM new The Left Shudders
And Bush leads.
by William Kristol
09/03/2007, Volume 012, Issue 47
Like a pig in muck, the left loves to wallow in Vietnam. But only in their "Vietnam." Not in the real Vietnam war.
Not in the Vietnam war of 1963-68, the disastrous years where policy was shaped by the best and brightest of American liberalism. Not in the Vietnam war of 1969-73, when Richard Nixon and General Creighton Abrams managed to adjust our strategy, defeat the enemy, and draw down American troops all at once--an achievement affirmed and rewarded by the American electorate in November 1972. Not in the Vietnam of early 1975, when the Democratic Congress insisted on cutting off assistance to our allies in South Vietnam and Cambodia, thereby inviting the armies of the North and the Khmer Rouge to attack. And not in the defeats of April 1975. As the American left celebrated from New York to Hollywood, in Phnom Penh former Cambodian prime minister Sirik Matak wrote to John Gunther Dean, the American ambassador, turning down his offer of evacuation:
Dear Excellency and Friend:
I thank you very sincerely for your letter and for your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you, and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it. You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But, mark it well, that if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is no matter, because we all are born and must die. I have only committed this mistake of believing in you [the Americans].
Please accept, Excellency and dear friend, my faithful and friendly sentiments.
S/Sirik Matak
The Khmer Rouge took Phnom Penh a few days later. Sirik Matak was executed: shot in the stomach, he was left without medical help and took three days to die. Between 1 and 2 million Cambodians were murdered by the Khmer Rouge in the next three years. Next door, tens of thousands of Vietnamese were killed, and many more imprisoned. Hundreds of thousands braved the South China Sea to reach freedom.
The United States welcomed the refugees--but we were in worldwide retreat. It turned out that the USSR was sufficiently tired and ramshackle that its attempts to take advantage of that retreat had limited success. Still, the damage done by U.S. weakness in the late 1970s should not be underestimated. To mention only one event, our weakness made possible the first successful Islamist revolution in the modern world in Iran in 1979, in the course of which we allowed a new Iranian government to hold 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
The era of weakness ended with the American public's repudiation of Jimmy Carter in 1980. Vietnam played a cameo role in that presidential campaign. In August of 1980, speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Ronald Reagan personally added the following thoughts on Vietnam to the prepared text of a defense policy speech: "As the years dragged on, we were told that peace would come if we would simply stop interfering and go home. It is time we recognized that ours was, in truth, a noble cause. .  .  . There is a lesson for all of us in Vietnam. If we are forced to fight, we must have the means and determination to prevail."
The media went nuts. What a gaffe! Howell Raines, writing a week later in the New York Times, wondered if the Vietnam comments, which had "provided ammunition for his critics," marked "perhaps the turn in Ronald Reagan's luck and in the momentum of his campaign"--a negative turn, Raines meant and hoped.
But it was not to be. Reagan stood by his guns. He beat Jimmy Carter. And all honor to George W. Bush for following in Reagan's footsteps, grasping the nettle, and confronting the real lessons and consequences of Vietnam. The liberal media and the PC academics are horrified. All the better.
As the left shudders, Bush leads. In his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars 27 years after Reagan's, Bush also told the truth about Vietnam. Now he has to be steadfast in supporting General Petraeus and ensuring that the war is fought as intelligently and energetically as possible. Not everyone in his administration is as fully committed to this task as they should be. Bush will have to be an energetic and effective commander in chief, both abroad and on the home front, over his final 17 months.
Last week was a good start.
--William Kristol
Weekly Standard
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
by Matthew Continetti
09/03/2007, Volume 012, Issue 47
On August 22, at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City, Missouri, President Bush delivered a 43-minute speech in which he compared the war in Iraq, and America's war on Islamic terrorism in general, to the three large 20th-century U.S. military interventions in Asia. The most controversial section of Bush's speech was 15 paragraphs likening those who claimed that America was the problem in Vietnam and that "if we would just withdraw, the killing would end" to those who today are saying similar things about Iraq. Bush's speech received an enthusiastic response from the audience, which frequently burst into applause (some 36 times, according to the White House transcript). Advocates of American withdrawal from Iraq were far less enthusiastic about the comparison of Iraq to Vietnam. Which is curious, as opponents of the war have been comparing that conflict to Vietnam since at least 2002, long before Saddam was deposed.
Anyone familiar with American politics over the last six years knows the important role the Vietnam trope has played in the Iraq debate. A search for New York Times articles in which "Iraq" appears within ten words of "Vietnam" brings up 989 hits between January 1, 2002, and August 24, 2007. Until this speech, the president had rejected comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, so one might think those Iraq critics who have used the Vietnam analogy in the past would welcome Bush's admission of a parallel, however limited, between the two wars. But one would be incorrect, because apparently the only legitimate lessons from Vietnam are those that conform to the antiwar worldview.
Bush's argument is uncharacteristically constrained. He acknowledged that Vietnam is a "complex and painful subject for many Americans." He conceded that the "tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech." He recognized that "there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left." Yet he also cautioned that "one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 'reeducation camps,' and 'killing fields.'"
In Bush's view, there is a second "unmistakable legacy" of American withdrawal from Vietnam--or, perhaps more accurately, of the cessation of American aid to the South Vietnamese government in 1975, which guaranteed the North's victory. (American combat troops left Vietnam in 1973.) This second legacy, Bush said, can be heard "in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle--those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September 11, 2001." Bush quoted from statements that Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have made about how America's defeat in Vietnam exposed it as a weak power. "Here at home," the president concluded, "some can argue that our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility--but the terrorists see it differently."
In what may have been the oddest response to the VFW speech, Hillary Clinton did not even mention Bush's reference to Vietnam: "The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to take steps to ensure a political solution to the situation," Clinton said. "It has failed to do so. . . . We need to stop refereeing the war, and start getting out now." (What made Clinton's response especially odd was that 48 hours earlier she had told the VFW that the surge was showing signs of progress.)
----
ANOTHER KERRY??? Taking BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT, according to whom she's speaking in front of
---
Barack Obama at least acknowledged "the disastrous consequences described by President Bush," but argued that they are "already in motion" and that "there is no military solution to Iraq's problems." America is powerless to stop the killing.
Speaking chronologically, of course, Obama's argument makes no sense. An event cannot have consequences before it occurs. In his speech, Bush warns that "if we were to abandon the Iraqi people," then the global jihadist movement "would be emboldened," "gain new recruits," and perhaps establish a "safe haven" from which it could launch attacks on America. Now it's possible that Bush is wrong about these consequences. But we wouldn't know whether he is until after America has left--something that has not happened and is unlikely to happen as long as he is president.
Another set of critics argued that it was impolitic of Bush to bring up Vietnam. This was a line often repeated in media reporting on the VFW speech. A Time magazine web article had the headline: "Bush's Risky Vietnam Gambit." The Washingtonpost.com columnist Dan Froomkin said Bush had entered "risky rhetorical territory." The report in the print edition tut-tutted that Vietnam "remains a divisive, emotional issue for many Americans." Guest-hosting MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Mike Barnicle asked, "What does the president have to gain by opening old wounds?" Senator John Kerry said "invoking the tragedy of Vietnam" was "irresponsible." And yet, during the entire debate over Iraq, opponents of intervention have brought up Vietnam frequently. When that happens, no one deems it "risky" or "irresponsible" of them to bring up this "divisive, emotional issue."
---
Yep, the now frequent liberal DOUBLE STANDARD - 'we can do it, you can't' LOL LOL
===========
Bush's opponents viewed Iraq as another Vietnam long before the war began. The linkage of Iraq and Vietnam on the New York Times editorial page occurs as early as January 31, 2002: "Not since America's humiliating withdrawal from Vietnam more than a quarter-century ago has our foreign policy relied so heavily on non-nuclear military force, or the threat of it, to defend American interests around the world." An August 11, 2002, editorial on Iraq twice mentioned Vietnam. On August 28, 2002, in an editorial entitled "Summons to War," the Times's editors wrote that Alberto Gonzales's "legal sophistry" was "reminiscent of Lyndon Johnson's use of the Tonkin Gulf resolution to authorize a disastrous land war in Vietnam."
In January 2003, the Times's editors wrote that the "first lesson of the Vietnam era" was that "Americans should not be sent to die for aims the country only vaguely understands and accepts." The "second lesson of Vietnam" was that the "country should never enter into a conflict without a clear exit strategy." For Bush's foes, such lessons are nonnegotiable. They are sacrosanct.
When war came in March 2003, the number of comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam grew, faded in the weeks following regime change, and then spiked once the war began to go badly. It was too much for Melvin Laird, secretary of defense in the Nixon administration, who penned a long article in the November/December 2005 Foreign Affairs attacking the phenomenon. "Those who wallow in such Vietnam angst would have us be not only reticent to help the rest of the world," Laird wrote, "but ashamed of our ability to do so and doubtful of the value of spreading democracy and of the superiority of freedom itself."
Those suffering from Vietnam angst, Laird wrote, think America was wrong in its intent in Indochina, wrong in its conduct, and eventually got what it had coming to it. They see the same things in America's intervention in Iraq. It's a view captured well by a September 14, 2002, letter to the editor of the Times:
A United States war on Iraq reminds me of another act of United States aggression, our war in Vietnam, which had no recognizable moral reasoning but economic and militaristic appeal. The similarities between the two eras are striking. Yet Vietnam created no economic gain for the United States, engendered years of infighting in our own country and led to a legacy of distrust of the government among many. How can we be the moral arbiter of the world if we can't even admit to our own failings?
The letter helps us understand why Bush's VFW speech has generated so much controversy. It's not because he brought up the lessons of Vietnam. It's because he brought up lessons which the opponents of that war and the current one--who so often seem to be the same people--deem incorrect. "The president is drawing the wrong lesson from history," Ted Kennedy said in response to Bush. The lesson of Vietnam, according to Kennedy, is that America lost a war "because our troops were trapped in a distant country we did not understand, supporting a government that lacked sufficient legitimacy from its people." For those who've been paying attention to the Iraq war debate, that probably sounds like a familiar lesson.
"The president emphasized the violence in the wake of American withdrawal from Vietnam," former Clinton national security council staffer Steven Simon told the Wall Street Journal. "But this happened because the United States left too late, not too early. . . . It was the expansion of the war that opened the door to Pol Pot and the genocide of the Khmer Rouge." Here is another "lesson" from Vietnam that, if true, would tend to support war opponents calling for America to leave Iraq.
Suddenly things become perfectly clear. Bush's opponents don't have a problem with Vietnam analogies. They have a problem with Vietnam analogies that undermine the case for American withdrawal. They see Vietnam as the exclusive property of the antiwar movement.
Matthew Continetti is associate editor at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No matter the war, the liberal left argues it was Americas FAULT....according to their twisted minds....it always is. The 'blame America first' nutcases are the ones who have CAUSED/BROUGHT about the FAILURES the US has experienced - as they are working towards AGAIN.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on August 27, 2007 06:41:41 AM new
"Yep, the now frequent liberal DOUBLE STANDARD - 'we can do it, you can't' LOL LOL
Yep, the now frequent neocon DOUBLE STANDARD---deny any comparison of Viet Nam to Iraq, until it becomes expedient to do so.
That is the objection---not that he made the comparison, but that he denied any similarities over and over, castigating dems for doing so, and then made comparisons himself---only when it became necessary for his continued manipulation of history.
Are YOU a Bunghole?
