Only Democrats can end wars
You can’t help but giggle whenever you read the Washington Post opinion section these days. Today is no different. John Podesta, Ray Takeyh and Lawrence J. Korb all take turns revising history to make their vacant point that it takes a Democrat to end our wars.
Even a cursory examination of American history reveals the complexity of concluding a war that has taken on such a stark partisan tint. The shadow of Vietnam looms, as it has become standard Republican narrative that back then it was the Democrats in Congress who stabbed America in the back by cutting off funding for a winning cause. The fact that the war was lost in Southeast Asia, as opposed to the halls of Congress, is no matter. The Republican machine will press this same theme should it lose the White House in November. A Democratic administration would be accused of surrendering to evildoers, as once more the dovish successors of George McGovern are wrongly said to have pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Um, guys, have you forgotten that it was a Democrat administration that manufactured the Gulf of Tonkin incident that put Marines on the ground in 1965 in the first place? That three years later that administration had to withdraw from the election because they’d managed the war so poorly that they couldn’t win an election. That they’d deceived the American people so badly, Democrats had lost all credibility as well as the next two elections (and five out of the next six elections)?
In fact, a reasonable person can make a rational argument that Democrats have been responsible for all of our wars from 1860 until 1965 (with the possible exception of the Spanish American War).
Can you buffoons name ONE American defeat on the field of battle in Southeast Asia? Just ONE. The war was lost on the streets of America and in the halls of the politically-motivated Democrats. Nothing you pinheads can tag-team write will ever change history.
Just like your mischaracterization of the situation in the Middle East today;
In today’s Middle East, America is neither liked nor respected. Iran flaunts its nuclear ambitions, confident that a bogged-down Washington has limited options but to concede to its mounting infractions. Afghanistan is rapidly descending into a Taliban-dominated state as the Bush administration responds only with plaintive complaints about NATO’s lack of resolution. And the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is nowhere near resolution. America’s occupation of Iraq is estranging an entire generation of Arab youths, creating a reservoir of antagonism that will take decades to overcome. A Democratic president who may enjoy a modest honeymoon in the Middle East simply by virtue of not being George W. Bush can take a giant step toward reclaiming America’s practical interests and moral standing by leaving Iraq.
Ya know why we’re not liked nor respected in the Middle East? It’s because of pseudo-intellectuals like you three who are constantly preaching about American hegemony and how we need to understand and talk with leaders in the Middle East. here’s all you need to understand – leaders in the Middle East only respect strength. That’s why Arafat almost broke his neck getting to the negotiation table after the first Gulf War, it’s the reason Jordan is our strongest ally in the Middle East, it’s the reason Gaddafi surrendered his chemical and nuclear weapons programs without a shot being fired.
Iran is a thorn in our side because they don’t think we have the will to attack them – they get that idea from nimnils like you three.
Yeah, Democrats can end wars – but the way they end wars brings us to the next war much more quickly. But since Leftists and Democrats have the world view and attention of a fruit fly, that part doesn’t bother them.
There’ll always be a Republican administration to clean up Democrats’ messes – and Democrats can blame the Republicans for screwing it up like these three imbeciles are doing in this vacuous brain fart on the pages of the Washington Post.
Category: Foreign Policy, Media, Terror War
Good post. The only thing that I would add is the Democrat’s back-stab of South Vietnam by cutting off their funding. Part of Nixon’s deal with withdrawing U.S. troops was that South Vietnam would continue to receive military aid from the U.S. The Democrats cut that off, and North Vietnam conducted a rather traditional invasion. Democrats, and their advocates at the Washington Post, would like to re-live the happiest times of their miserable lives.
Thanks. They forget the reeducation camps, the exodus of the Vietnamese boat people, the strain the refugees put on the World’s economies, the Cambodian killing fields, the Vietnamese invasion of Laos and the mess that was caused because they didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the Communists in Southeast Asia. And there’s been no consequences for them yet.
My God, what world do these kooks live in? Arab youths are estranged because we liberated 50 million Muslims? Afghanistan is a Taliban State? And who neither likes nor respects America in the Mid East, the dictators who are killing their own people? Well GOOD! This is typical, anti-American, head-in-the-sand, appeasement-minded, Bush Derangement Syndrome, boilerplate neo-liberalism at its clearest. Up is down, day is night, etc.
As we essentially eliminated the Viet Cong from the battle field during and after Tet, we get the leftists screaming about how we can’t win in Vietnam. Thanks for reviving a dying commie you fools. And now it’s not their fault because we lost on the battlefield. The North was scrambling to figure their next move after watching their entire flank go down the tubes when all of a sudden, “Hold the phone. Turn on the TV. You won’t believe it — Cronkite just theatrically ripped his glasses off and asked why the U.S. is in Vietnam!! WOO HOO! This gives us at least another 6 months to reorganize and lick our wounds!”
The EXACT same thing is going on in Iraq as we write this. And they can’t wait to see America lose and watch our guys die in vain — again. They are sick, sick fools.