Missing The Point On Vietnam

Not all historians, such as Robert Dallek, disagree with the president's historical comparison between Iraq and Vietnam:

Kerry and Kennedy missed key facts about Vietnam, some of them long obvious, others newly emerged from historical studies. The New York Times and NBC News and CNN and so on missed them, too, because they chose to rely on outdated historians or their own prejudices. The insurgency in Vietnam was dead by 1971, thanks to South Vietnam's armed forces, America's forces, and a South Vietnamese civilian population that overwhelmingly viewed the South Vietnamese government as legitimate. During 1972, after all American combat units had departed, South Vietnamese forces defeated a massive North Vietnamese invasion with the help of American air power. The so-called Christmas bombing of 1972 bombed North Vietnam into submission, resulting in a peace treaty. Had the antiwar Congress not slashed aid to South Vietnam and prohibited the use of American aircraft over
Vietnamese skies, the South Vietnamese probably could have repulsed the NorthVietnamese when they violated the peace treaty in 1975.

and

It is also a mistake to assert, as many have asserted in recent days, that the United States never should have intervened in Vietnam in the first place because Vietnam was predestined to become capitalist. In my research, I found that American intervention in Vietnam saved Indonesia from going Communist in 1965. It probably also prevented countries such as Thailand, Japan, the Philippines, and Malaysia from becoming Communist or pro-Communist. Furthermore, American intervention fractured the Sino-North Vietnamese alliance and tamed China. In the absence of these developments, socialism might well have persisted in Vietnam and other Asian countries to this day.

President Bush has shown that he is up to speed on the latest historical discoveries on Vietnam. Those who are inclined to disagree should first get up to speed themselves.

Mark Moyar is the author of two books on the Vietnam War.

Bush "under-educated" says NPR Talk Show Host

Brian Lehrer, the host of the The Brian Lehrer Show (On WNYC, an NPR affiliate), made quite an off hand comment this morning about president Bush. It may have been worded poorly, it may have been unintentional, or it may have been a Freudian slip:

Lehrer:

...Let's begin with Bush on Vietnam, what an odd thing to bring up.

[After playing a clip from president Bush's Iraq/Vietnam speech last week]:

Lehrer:

Is this another example of president Bush being kind of under-educated, or not realizing the impact of his words, thinking he could make that kind of ideological remark, if you can call it that, without having historians and politicians jump all over him?

Hmm... Yale and Harvard degrees, one should be so unfortunate.

This comment, unsurprising as it is coming from NPR, does not go very far toward the show's description on WNYC, of a "sane alternative" in talk radio.

Lastly, if Lehrer did some research, he would find that many historians happen to agree with the president's assessment of a dangerous parallel between Iraq and Vietnam: Vietnam historians give Bush reason to stay in Iraq. Brian Lehrer seems under-educated on this fact.

Not to mention that both Jonn Kerry and James Webb, critics of Bush's comparison, have compared Iraq to Vietnam when it suited their political agenda.

Rife With Hypocrisy

...in the liberal Blogosphere:

Blogger Josh Marshall this week:

We are today frequently called on to see the president's wrecked "democracy promotion agenda" as an example of some sort of failed though laudable, even tragic, idealism. . . .

But the whole story, like so much else from the Bush White House, is press and pomp with no substance. What's remarkable is how little questioning there's been about whether such an agenda ever existed at all--

Marshall from 2003:

The administration is trying to roll the table--to use U.S. military force, or the threat of it, to reform or topple virtually every regime in the region, from foes like Syria to friends like Egypt, on the theory that it is the undemocratic nature of these regimes that ultimately breeds terrorism. . . .

Oops.

I made my own case for hypocrisy at the CarpetBagger Report this week. I also pointed out Kerry's remarks critical of Bush comparing Iraq to Vietnam, when Kerry did the same thing himself just last month! Marshall is just icing on the cake.

(H/T Instapundit)

The War On Terror's Greatest Hits

Hypocrisy left and, well... mostly left. In no particular order of ridiculousness...

I. Nancy Pelosi, speaking to NPR News in one of her [not so] finest moments:

Reporter: “In Afghanistan, why are more troops the answer? Why would one consider more troops going into Afghanistan, and not Iraq?”

Pelosi: “They’re two different situations - the war on terror is in Afghanistan."

II. John Edwards 2007: The "war on terror" is nothing but a "bumper sticker."

In the first presidential debate last month in South Carolina, Edwards was one of four Democrats — including Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel — who said they did not believe there was a global "war on terror."

III. John Edwards 2004: "I think we will be united with this President throughout this war on terrorism."

IV. al Qaeda's number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri:

Ayman Al-Zawahiri defended the Islamic State of Iraq — the insurgent umbrella group headed by Al Qaeda — against critics among Islamic militant groups, saying it was a vanguard for fighting off the U.S. military and eventually establishing a "caliphate" of Islamic rule across the region.

"The Islamic State of Iraq is set up in Iraq, the mujahedeen (holy warriors) celebrate it in the streets of Iraq, the people demonstrate in support of it," Al-Zawahiri said, "pledges of allegiance to it are declared in the mosques of Baghdad."

V. Brigadier General Kevin Bergner Multi-National Force-Iraq Spokesperson:

"The security environment in Iraq continues to be characterized by a number of threats... today we will provide an update on the principal near term threat to Iraq, which is al Qaeda of Iraq. In their own statements, al Qaeda leaders have declared Iraq their central front... our intelligence community, the government of Iraq, and the MNF all assess aqi as the main near term threat. AQI is a network led and fueled by foreign extremists who envision a new caliphate, and according to al Qaeda senior leader Zawahiri's latest video, they claim the al Qaeda gateway to victory starts in Iraq."

VI. Congressman Gary Ackerman (D) of New York:

For some reason, the military seems more afraid of gay people than they are against terrorists, because they’re very brave with the terrorists. I mean, if the terrorists ever got a hold of this information, they’d get a platoon of lesbians to chase us out of Baghdad.

VII. Young Male Gang Raped for Refusing to Convert to Islam

VIII. Murtha last year on the accused Haditha Marines:

Rep. John Murtha, an influential Pennsylvania lawmaker and outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, said today Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood” after allegedly responding to a roadside bomb ambush that killed a Marine during a patrol in Haditha, Iraq, Nov. 19. The incident is still under investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and Multi-National Forces Iraq.———-“It's much worse than was reported in Time magazine,” Murtha, a Democrat, former Marine colonel and Vietnam war veteran, told reporters on Capitol Hill. “There was no firefight. There was no [bomb] that killed those innocent people,” Murtha explained, adding there were “about twice as many” Iraqis killed than Time had reported.

IX. "They went into houses and killed women and children... in cold blood!"


X. Investigator Recommends Dropping Charges on Haditha Marine:

The investigating officer has recommended dismissing murder charges against Marine LCpl. Justin Sharratt accused in the slayings of three Iraqi men in Haditha, Iraq.

XI. Now Congressman Murtha is running for cover from the press about his hyperbolic comments.

XII. Biden/Kerry in June, 2005:

Sen. John Kerry, Bush's Democratic opponent in last year's presidential election, told NBC's "Today" show that the borders of Iraq "are porous" and said "we don't have enough troops" there.

Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," disputed Bush's notion that sufficient troops are in place.

"I'm going to send him the phone numbers of the very generals and flag officers that I met on Memorial Day when I was in Iraq," the Delaware Democrat said. "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."

Biden argued, "The course that we are on now is not a course of success. He (Bush) has to get more folks involved. He has to stand up that army more quickly."

XIII. Biden in February, 2007:

Appearing on Face the Nation the next day, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, proposed his alternate route to stopping Mr. Bush from sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq. "I've been working with some of my colleagues to try to convince them that's the way to go – to repeal and restate the president's authority," Biden told Bob Schieffer. "Make it clear that the purpose that he has troops in there is to in fact protect against al Qaeda gaining chunks of territory, training the Iraqi forces, force protection and for our forces. It's not to get in the midst of a civil war."

More VDH... Overstating and Missing

HH: And what does the enemy think, both of John Kerry and this week's brouhaha, and also about these University of Pennsylvania pictures?

VDH: They think that we are a wealthy, affluent, leisured society that doesn't have a moral sense, that are corrupt, that are godless, and that they are zealots. They believe in a hereafter. They have a more pure view of human experience, and that we hide behind our technology and our sophisticated weapons, and we're not able to get down and dirty with them and fight for what we believe in. They believe that we don't know who we are, if we're better than the alternative. And they think in the long war that this is becoming, they're going to outlast us. So when they see a John Kerry say these things, or they see a Dick Durbin, or they see a picture like this, they say a-ha. You see? We're winning on the battlefield, because these people do not want to support this long war. They don't believe in it.

If this is true, and I don't necessarily dispute Victor Davis Hanson that the United States can certainly be a bloated, morally deficient world of reality TV, superstar movie adorement and obsessive desire for greater corporate profits... if this is true, then shouldn't VDH be out there on the picket line with a foam board banner outside NBC, ABC and CBS studios decrying reality TV?

Wouldn't it logically follow that primetime television shows such as 'The Bachelor', 'The Bachleorette', or even 'Grey's Anatomy' further the Islamo-Fascist agenda by proving that Americans are "morally bereft" and that we have only narrow interests, leaning to a prurient nature?

Shouldn't he be calling for the shut down of our corporate media celebrity cult of personality?

No? Because if not, then I'm not exactly sure what he is saying... the terrorists believe we are morally inferior, lacking, etc. Fast forward... the Democrats vindicate the terrorist's views?

What am I missing? I don't understand. Please forgive me.

VDH should start by calling for a boycott on the Britney Spears midnight wedding trysts in Las Vegas, the 'Who wants to be a millionaire' game shows, the 'Dateline NBC: To Catch a Predator expose's.'

Because it's our freedom that VDH is calling into question. And it's our freedom that the terrorists take issue with.

So maybe, VDH, you might start with some domestic introspection, or at the very least appeal to our Christian roots and request some restraint. Because the terrorists are wrong - they have no right to tell us who we are or what we should say, express or stand for.

But look at our culture - If you were to look at our popular culture, who are we, and what do we stand for?

I don't have any answers, but neither does Victor Davis Hanson.

Kerry is an ass

John Kerry... why did I vote for you? I should have written myself onto the ballot.

Not because you should have won the election.

Not because you gave us four more years of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, budget deficit spending, soft power squandering, military blundering, pork barrel-been-in-office too long Republicans.

Not because you repeated Dukakis' tank photo op missteps in the form of wind-surfing and snowboarding.

Not because you married up.

Not because you proposed that we pull out of Iraq [Which in and of itself is enough of a reason why you're an ass]

Not because you voted to invade Iraq [Which is also in and of itself enough of a reason why your'e an ass]

Not because the doubts regarding your military record and achievements may hold some validity.

Not even because of what you said about the troops - regardless your real meaning.

John Kerry, you are an ass because as another weak-kneed incumbent, with the levers of a Party machine at your behest, I still have no clue what alternative you represent to George Bush. I sort of had an idea when you ran against Bush, but any doubts I had were overshadowed by my conviction at the time that we needed a change.

I'm no longer willing to accept a flawed candidate that may be closer to my position on the spectrum, but ironically suffers from a lack of political savvy the President possesses. You have missed the boat and the opportunity to state a clear and concise platform.

John Kerry, you are an ass because like many Democrats, you have no vision, no grand plan for the future. You, like many other Democrats, run under the "We're not Bush" banner, so "vote for us". That doesn't cut it anymore, and it won't cut it in 2008, so think harder.

Or better yet, please do not attempt to run again.

John Kerry, you have turned yourself into a lightning rod for the Right. At its mere mention, your name generates more venom than Hillary's in Republican circles, and within the Republican party base.

John Kerry, you are George W. Bush. You are Bush's doppleganger. Face the facts.

John Kerry, you are not a centrist. You will not provide the strong national security leadership tempered by domestic restraint that this country needs.

You will rule as all Presidents have since Nixon... overreaching your constitutional limits, overlegislating, overacting in front of the cameras, underperforming, and underestimating what the average American citizen wants.

You will spend as much, if not more than Bush (which says a lot), you will continue outdated government programs or expand them, and you will comment and legislate on issues reserved to the states (But in your defense, so have many many Presidents before you).

You wouldn't be bold, you wouldn't be brave, you would not be original. How do I know this? You have already demonstrated your lack of political talent in more ways than one. Why should we expect more? Why should you deserve a second chance?

Please go back to the fantasy world from which you came. Crawl back into your own psyche, sitting in a leather chair, staring at the picture of JFK on your desk in loving adulation. But this time please come to the realization that you are not JFK, you will not be JFK, and then stay indoors and accept your lot in life.

P.S. - Thanks for the Big Dig, too. It was overly ambitious, heinously overbudget, and is still falling apart; much like your Presidential campaign Past, Present, and Future.

Dear Jon... Carry

Since this picture has made little to no play on the major media outlets, I'm posting it here. It's already been posted on many other alternative media sites.

Although what Senator Kerry meant vs. what he said is still a matter up for debate, there can be little doubt as to the effect his poorly chosen words have had on at least some American Service Members.