The Party of Retreat and Defeat

[Pendragon_6]

By Peter Collier and David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 19, 2006

As the fall elections approach, the Democrats have formally unveiled their platform for the war in Iraq: snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

At the very moment that documents captured from the Zarqawi death site indicate that Al Qaeda feels it is losing its war against the Iraqi future and has become so desperate that its only hope to prevail is by embroiling the U.S. in war with Iran.

At the very moment Iraq’s democratically elected government is establishing itself as a functioning regime, and its increasingly capable military becomes more successfully engaged against the insurgents —at this critical moment for the future of Iraq and the Middle East, more than three quarters of the House Democrats have voted against a resolution to “complete the mission.”

For the first time in American history, a major political party wants America to run from a war we are winning.



In Full
Front Page Magazine (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22989)

[Lubbock]

That exchange between Kerry and O'Neill makes the hair on the nape of my neck stand up.

Jeez!!!!!

Talk about history repeating itself.

[Antigone]

Surely Lubbock, and they still won't get it even if you try to explain it to them. They will never see that they are wrong in wanting to pull out of Iraq even though there is history to prove that strategy will not work. Like talking to a brick wall.

[Pendragon_6]

Politically, the democrats stance towards the war will surely be their undoing. Keep it up, you fools, defeat awaits you in November.

[Lubbock]

Exactly, Antigone. If they could just get over their irrational and all-consuming hatred for George W. Bush, they might be able to put the good of the nation ahead of their political ambitions.

The only parallel I see to Iraq (indeed, the War On Terror) and Viet Nam is that we have the same threadbare protesters that we had in the seventies. They are now old and wrinkled, their brains even more muddled from drugs than in the 70's, and their "hate speech" (if a Conservative is allowed to use that term) even more vile and disgusting than in the 70's. And just like in the 70's, they have a particularly vile bunch of politicians echoing their message --Kerry, Murtha, Pelosi, et al.

They have had the platform for "peace" since the time they marched and burned the flag and spit on returning soldiers in the 70's. They never met a despot they couldn't fall in love with --I cite Castro.

Things are quite different now. We are fighting an entirely different enemy, and I suppose, beasue most of them burned their brains up with acid in the 70's, they don't have the mental capacity to understand.

[Lazarus]

...For the first time in American history, a major political party wants America to run from a war we are winning.
Not entirely true, Dragon... Our saturation bombing of Hanoi had them on their knees and only the actions of the anti-war crowd in the US handed victory to the Communists - Facts admitted by members of the Communist high command in Hanoi years after the war was over...

But your major point is excellent...

[DoctorDoom]

Our saturation bombing of Hanoi had them on their knees and only the actions of the anti-war crowd in the US handed victory to the Communists - Facts admitted by members of the Communist high command in Hanoi years after the war was over...In a recent interview published in The Wall Street Journal, former Colonel Bui Tin who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30,1975, confirmed the American Tet 1968 military victory: "Our loses were staggering and a complete surprise. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for reelection. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to reestablish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was."

On strategy: "If Johnson had granted Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war. It was the only way we could bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort involving tens of thousands of soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations, communication units, etc. Our operations were never compromised by attacks on the trail. At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom. If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of time to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest was damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us.

And the left: "Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and would struggle along with us ... those people represented the conscience of America ....part of it's war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor."

Bui Tin went on to serve as the editor of the People's Daily, the Official newspaper of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Disillusioned with the reality of Vietnamese communism Bui Tin now lives in Paris.Colonel Bui Tin (http://www.lcompanyranger.com/weapons/colonelbuitinpage.htm)

America is infested with traitors.

[Lazarus]

As I stated in another thread, Free Men are always the greatest threat to leftists... They will not stop until America is properly brought to heal and chained in a cage...

[Pendragon_6]

Not entirely true, Dragon... Our saturation bombing of Hanoi had them on their knees and only the actions of the anti-war crowd in the US handed victory to the Communists - Facts admitted by members of the Communist high command in Hanoi years after the war was over...

But your major point is excellent...
=================


I stand corrected.:D

[Lazarus]

This, BTW, is the only parallel between Vietnam and Iraq... The Left has so little real plan to offer, they simply fall back on old tactics that served them well in the past... In this case, with their willing accomplices in the MSM, they hope to gain power in Washington by handing America another defeat... It worked in Vietnam - why not Iraq...

[Pendragon_6]

The main difference here at home between Iraq and Vietnam, is that WE will not let the anti-war crowd delude the public into surrender the way they did back then.

[Johnnybegood]

The Left has a plan lets run and hide.................

[Lazarus]

The main difference here at home between Iraq and Vietnam, is that WE will not let the anti-war crowd delude the public into surrender the way they did back then.I think you're on the mark with that one... The public in general has grown up when it comes to the MSM... We no longer swallow their horseshit as the gospel... They lied once too often and we saw the little man behind the curtain working the levers and buttons...

[Lazarus]

...it is after all the internet that has allowed many to avoid the MSM's propaganda...The left is already crying like babies over the unfairness of the internet and the most infamous Talk Radio... To the left, any source that offers facts or even opinions that are in opposition to their total control of information is considered unfair...

In short, they cant deal with their own weapons turned on themselves... How dare Conservatives actually get their message out to the public...

[DesertFox]

Their hate is not Bush, it is America and the thought that America might be strong and right. They HATE this nation.:yeahthat:

[DoctorDoom]

The left is already crying like babies over the unfairness of the internet and the most infamous Talk Radio... To the left, any source that offers facts or even opinions that are in opposition to their total control of information is considered unfair...Talk radio, cable news, and the blogosphere freed U.S. political discourse. The Left wants to rein it in again.

The rise of alternative media—political talk radio in the eighties, cable news in the nineties, and the blogosphere in the new millennium—has broken the liberal monopoly over news and opinion outlets. The Left understands acutely the implications of this revolution, blaming much of the Democratic Party’s current electoral trouble on the influence of the new media’s vigorous conservative voices. Instead of fighting back with ideas, however, today’s liberals quietly, relentlessly, and illiberally are working to smother this flourishing universe of political discourse under a tangle of campaign-finance and media regulations. Their campaign represents the most sustained attack on free political speech in the United States since the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts. Though Republicans have the most to lose in the short run, all Americans who care about our most fundamental rights and the civic health of our democracy need to understand what’s going on—and resist it.

The most imminent danger comes from campaign-finance rules, especially those spawned by the 2002 McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act. Republican maverick John McCain’s co-sponsorship aside, the bill passed only because of overwhelming Dem support. It’s easy to see why liberals have spearheaded the nation’s three-decade experiment with campaign-finance regulation. Seeking to rid politics of “big-money corruption,” election-law reforms obstruct the kinds of political speech—political ads and perhaps now the feisty editorializing of the new media—that escape the filter of the mainstream press and the academy, left-wing fiefdoms still regulation-free. Campaign-finance reform, notes columnist George Will, by steadily expanding “government’s control of the political campaigns that decide who controls government,” advances “liberalism’s program of extending government supervision of life.”

The irony of campaign-finance reform is that the “corruption” it targets seems not to exist in any widespread sense. Studies galore have found little or no significant influence of campaign contributions on legislators’ votes. Ideological commitments, party positions, and constituents’ wishes are what motivate the typical politician’s actions in office. Aha! reformers will often riposte, the corruption is hidden, determining what Congress doesn’t do—like enacting big gas taxes. But as Will notes, “that charge is impossible to refute by disproving a negative.” Even so, such conspiracy-theory thinking is transforming election law into what journalist Jonathan Rauch calls “an engine of unlimited political regulation.”The Plot to Shush Rush and O’Reilly (http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_1_rush_oreilly.html)

[DesertFox]

Skroom.