LAT: Americans won't let Democrats lose Iraq

Los Angeles Times ^ | October 28, 2005 | DAVID GELERNTER

[West Coast Conservative]

A FEW DAYS AGO, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) made a speech urging the U.S., in effect, to get out of Iraq the way we got out of Vietnam.

Leahy told the Senate that we cannot win in Iraq. "It has become increasingly apparent that the most powerful army in the world cannot stop a determined insurgency." (U.S. troops, Iraqi troops, long-suffering Iraqi civilians to Leahy: Thanks, senator, we needed that.) And Leahy announced that the president must lay out a public formula to tell the world just when U.S. troops will leave Iraq. Otherwise, Leahy said, he will urge the Senate to choke off the war by refusing to fund it. That's how the U.S. finally lost Vietnam: Congress snuffed out the money.

Be warned, senator: If Democrats become the "let's treat Iraq as we treated Vietnam" party, the public will turn away in revulsion, and the Democratic Party will die. It's not in such great shape anyhow.

Leahy's words lighted up a deep, dark secret that this nation would rather forget. Defeat in Vietnam was a catastrophe for the U.S., a body-slam to the nation's self-confidence. It was far worse for Southeast Asians, who were exiled, imprisoned, tortured and murdered by their vicious communist conquerors. But for left-wing Democrats it was a triumph. Forcing the mighty U.S. military to run away was the greatest victory they have ever known. That triumph broke a levee that sent a flood of left-wing ideas pounding across the U.S. landscape.

The 1974 congressional elections were a blow-out victory for Democrats. Watergate was a big factor, but public exhaustion with Vietnam (encouraged by the media) helped too. In 1973, the last U.S. combat troops left Vietnam, but Washington had promised to support South Vietnam with money and weapons.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Who is ...Galernter ?

I like what he says....

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!!

[My2Cents]

They love fueling their nihilism and angst.

[devolve]

     VIET CONGAL QAEDA 

[wagglebee]

There is and always has been one major difference between Vietnam and Iraq:
Vietnam was never a direct threat to the United States of America.

Vietnam was basically a "proxy" war between the US and the Soviets (a decade or so later, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan would become another similar proxy war). Don't get me wrong, I fully supported the Vietnam War (actually, I was a little too young, but I would have); however, we knew after we pulled out of Vietnam that the NVA and Viet Cong wasn't going to bring the fight to America. We don't have this luxury with Islamofascist terrorism. The left opposed the war in Vietnam because they wanted the communists to win, they oppose Iraq because they hate Bush and stupidly believe that if we pull out of the Middle East, terrorism will cease to be a problem.

I heard Pat Buchanan on Hannity yesterday trying to say that Bush should handle Iraq the same way Reagan handled the Soviets. That's bullsh*t! We always had lines of communication with the Soviets and at least from 1963 on the knowledge that they did not wish a direct war with us. Terrorism is something that no president has ever had the courage to deal with before, if things had been handled differently in the 80's and certainly in the 90's, Bush might never have been put in the situation he is in.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I was a little too young,

I was too old...

[griswold3]

There was a rumor recently (during the Kerry campaign) that there were not as many killed in Cambodia as previously believed. They were simply relocated to rural area.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Redcloak]

They were simply relocated to rural area.

Not so much "to" as "into" a rural area.

[EvilOverlord]

If they went to those countries, they should have to live with the people who are under the heels of the dictators the liberals love. They would have sleep in their shacks and share their rotten and meager food.

All that would prove to the liberals is that the United States is a rich, selfish country that is responsible for the state that their new homes are in by

a) not providing enough aid,

b) and/or supporting some dictator somewhere in that country's history,

c) and/or standing on sacred Arab sand and supporting Israel, thus creating the conditions that allow these tyrants to come to power and rule their people through violence.

You must not forget that everything is always the fault of the United States. Always.

[wagglebee]

Did what I wrote make any sense?

[Fred Hayek]

The liberals (and specifically the producers of Hearts and Minds cheered for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Later my parents understood why I gave the finger toward the TV set in response to that abomination acceptance speech.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The left opposed the war in Vietnam because they wanted the communists to win,

Much of that feeling is still operative.....

Get this book:

***************************************************

Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left

And a very good review:

*********************************

Vastly Illuminating, September 25, 2004

Reviewer:

Kat Bakhu (Albuquerque, NM United States) - See all my reviews

I had long wondered why people on the Left had the propensity to speak more positively about people who would slit their throats than they do about their own country, which affords them more freedom and opportunity than anywhere else. David Horowitz has answered that question thoroughly and convincingly in his Unholy Alliance. Where I felt bewildered and confused, I now feel crystal clear. Unholy Alliance is such a great book.

It begins with the leftist movements at the beginning of the 20th Century, and works its way up to the present day, exploring the anti-American attitude of these movements in detail. Horowitz shows that the enemies of the US back then are largely the same group today, operating under the same misperceptions, making the same mistakes, and pursuing the same impossible utopia.

Individual chapters are included on the Patriot Act (I was persuaded that it is a GOOD thing); the democratic flip-flop on Iraq once G.W. Bush implemented what they agreed with Clinton needed to be done; the driving components of the current anti-war movement; as well as chapters on individual personalities who are major spokespeople of the Left. Horowitz covers a lot of ground, and he covers it concisely and clearly. Unholy Alliance is richly informative without ever being boring or plodding.

This book is so illuminating that I simply cannot do justice to it here. I love people who reason so clearly that they help me get my own reasoning clear. Horowitz is just that type of person! In the terrain of mindless clichés (no-blood-for-oil, etc.), he is a breath of real fresh air.

[Grampa Dave]

"You must not forget that everything is always the fault of the United States. Always."

We can never forget that terrible message from the MSM and leftist liberals that is spread 24/7/365.

[Grampa Dave]

"The first major sign that the control of the Left has been weakened out here....The referendum vote on Nov 8th could deliver another blow to their control...."

Besides the political gains, there is a very large Vietnamese population in the LA Slimes circulation area. If the Slimes does the Nam comparisons too hard, they will lose a lot of ad $s and subscriptions from the Vietnamese refugees and their American friends and neighbors.

[Grampa Dave]

Great one.

We can count on the left wing maggots in our Senate and House to be against America in the Nam years and now.

[Grampa Dave]

"Trolls, terrorists, democrat moonbat's, suicide bombers, and the mainstream media are sad ~ very sad! "

They are the truly evil people in this land and around this world.

Anyone who sides with a mass murderer like Saddam and his fellow mass murders are evil and dangers scumbags.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Quick answer.....yes!

[blackie]

Amen!

[dangus]

>> Leahy solidified his position as one of the most vile Senators. <<

Are you kidding? You have to run like mad just to stay in place in that crowd!