The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Bet you Democrats wish someone would muzzle your National Committee Chairman.

SAN ANTONIO) -- Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years. [SNIP]

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

No, that’s not how it happened, but why bother fisking Mr. Yankee Yell?

With all of the hemming and hawing that Democrats like John Kerry are doing, it’s refreshing to hear a Democrat spokesmen come straight out and state unequivocally that The United States and its military should give up its mission and abandon the Iraqis. Governor Dean is quite brave in his own way (or crazy; often the same thing).

When are the rest of you going to admit that Mr. Dean is on message, that Senator Joseph Lieberman is the renegade and that the rest of the Democrat Congress critters simply don’t have the stones to take a definitive stand?

UPDATE:

Ma Deuce Gunner

The Jawa Report

Dr. Sanity (appropriately enough)

Ed Morrissey notes that Dr. Dean's word's recall those of that well-known yea/naysayer (mentioned above) from some thirty-odd years ago. Kerry does it again:

And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs.

This man could have been our president. Ponder that.

Comments

[Brad]

If the Democrats don't effect a defeat by retreat pretty soon they are goint to have to defend their anti-war position in an election.

[Brad]

By the way: Remember that Tet was redefined by Mr. Cronkite as a loss and our defeat by retreat was assured from that point.

Our military is the best, smartest, toughest military ever to stand on this earth (it isn't about hardware) but our ability to win is dependant on our people being the best, smartest and toughest as well. If one of these can't stand we all lose.

[Michael]

The war in Vietnam was not lost by troops in the field. The war in Vietnam was lost in the hearts and minds of the American people.

It was their choice.

[Tully]

The war in Vietnam was lost when Congress cut off funding to South Vietnam. By then our troops were home.

[bman]

Thats correct Tully, but not before the ARVN with help from our advisors and air support kicked the NVA's ass during the Easter offensive in 1972.

[justin]

Great, now you all have a built in excuse when Bush starts withdrawing troops--it's all the Democrat's fault!! For the record, I disagree with Dean and do not think we should pull out, but unfortunately, my gut tells me the "political" decision will be made, which means a pull-out before the midterm elections.

And, come on, let's not re-write the history of the Vietnam war. What is it now, we really won, but liberals made us pull out an lose?

[torchy]

Egads, I don't know what upsets me more, Kerry using the 't' word in reference to our troops or using it in the context of things that "unite Democrats" and are recognized as "what we all agree on"(besides the view that Bushs'policies in Iraq are utter failures, which is continually overstated). Sounds proto-fascist to me.

[teal marie]

Somebody tell Jusin his guts have sh*t for brains. I'm way too furious.

[Tully]

Let's not forget the ass-kicking we gave the VC during Tet, which Cronkite managed to play up as a loss for us.

Justin, do some serious research on Vietnam some day. Much of what you "know" about that war is likely wrong. When we left Vietnam the North had been beaten, and the South was in good shape. Two years later the post-Watergate Dems in Congress pulled all the funding and material military aid for South Vietnam. And the North attacked, knowing we wouldn't intervene and help the South. A million or so South Vietnamese were slaughtered, millions more fled, and millions more were forcibly "re-educated."

The left counts that as a great victory, their Glory Days of Social Relevance. For America and the free world it was a disaster. The left would love to re-live it, and seem to be working very hard to re-create it. The South Vietnamese have different opinions of how that turned out. Those alive, that is.

[Indigo]

Good suggestion on the research, Tully. Some of the strongest opinions now being voiced on Vietnam are from people who were not even born until after it was over. Go figure.

[Warthog]

From now on it's all about hillary, both dean and kerry are her puppets. They are just there to make her look mainstream.

[Tully]

I didn't even mention the massive military aid that the North received from the USSR and PRC for their invasion of the South, or their involvement in the simultaneous Khmer Rouge takeover of Cambodia and the resulting atrocities there. More millions.

[justin]

Justin, do some serious research on Vietnam some day.

I have. The last 1 1/2 years of my undergrad were spent studying the end of the Vietnam war. Certainly doesn't make me an expert, but I do know enough to know thay you right-wingers who are trying to re-write history are full of it.

Teal, what the *#& are you mad at now? I guess it's asking too much for you to actually articulate a point for once.

[Tully]

Note that he offers no factual rebuttal at all, just accusations that history is being re-written by "right wingers."

[Tully]

Darn dangling tags.

[JLawson]

Often I ponder what fates guide the course of our presidential elections. Carter - ineffectual, and his weaknesses (combined with a lingering malaise from the Viet Nam war) led into some dark times. Clinton was fine as a Party Prez - but notably lacking when it came to international backbone. Gore was cast in the same mold at Clinton, minus the charisma. He wouldn't have, I think, had the courage to do what Bush did re Afghanistan and Iraq... and what happened there led to the Orange and Cedar revolutions and Libya coming clean on their WMD programs. Kerry - again, I don't believe he'd have had the courage to prosecute a war, and his other qualifications were questionable.

J.

[justin]

Tully, if Baldilocks starts a thread about our pullout from Vietnam, I'll go into with you there, because believe me, I could ramble on about this for a long time.

Short version: Paris Peace accords signed in Jan. 1973, ending US involvement in the war. US troops pulled out, but US aid was cut almost in half; Russians and Chinese increased aid, North Vietnamese rolled over South Vietnam.

Tully, the war wasn't "won". We wanted to get out so we signed a peace accord. If the US troops basically fought the Noth Vietnamese to a stalemate, it seems sort of preposterous to suggest that US aid alone, without US troops, would have stopped a N. Vietnamese offensive,

[torchy]

*/$@# you Justin. "We" only need an excuse for putting up with your shitty generalizations about "us". What on earth gives you the idea that Bush will commence troop withdrawal for "political" reasons when every word out of his mouth has only considered performance based criteria for withdrawal. Your 'gut' tells you that Bush et al would do something you can't agree with Dean even suggesting (even though Dean can't possibly create any major traction for his 'positions'). Well, your 'gut' does have 'shit for brains'(lol) and its rumblings apparently pushed the midterm election date out of your ass. And where do you get the nerve to call anyone inarticulate after those kind of ravings? That's doubly infuriating.

[justin]

Torchy, we'll see whether I'm right. I hope I really do have *#$(# for brains. And quite frankly, the Bush administration has a sketchy history with the truth, so what he acutally "says" carries little weight with me.

[justin]

Although, I will admit that Bush's speeches to the country have been getting much better. I think he's finally learned to explain what we are doing.

[Tully]

Uh-huh. We're "re-writing history" but you "can ramble on forever."

The North didn't have a chance (nor did the PRC and USSR resupply them and the Khmer Rouge) until the Senate Dems in 1974 green-lighted 'em by cutting off ALL aid to the South. The generals of the North said so themselves.

Feel free to list all those battles where the North beat the US.

[justin]

Feel free to list all those battles where the North beat the US.

Tully, you clearly don't understand the nature of the Vietnam war. Please show me where the Vietnamese surrendered to the US. We can win battles militarily (Tet is a good example), but still lose in the broader sense of achieving our objectives. Look at the US war for independence as an example. It's about wearing down the enemy, not winning battles.

The North didn't have a chance (nor did the PRC and USSR resupply them and the Khmer Rouge).
Tully, the peace treaty allowed for 150,000 N. Vietnamese troops to remain in S. Vietnam, and S. Vietnam had to have its arm twisted (hence the promised US money) to enter into the treaty. Again, the US fights the North to a virtual stalemate, the US leaves, and you say that the North didn't have a chance, even without US troops. Are you serious?

[torchy]

No Justin, You have been sketchy with the truth, gutting it to the point where carries no weight at all, period. We don't have to wait to see whether that's right. And don't try to fix it with flip concessions as an afterthought. It completely undermines any credibility your opinions might of had.

[Tully]

Number of battles lost named, none.

Justin, if you want to make the argument that we abandoned an allie, resulting in their complete destruction, I'll agree. If you want to claim that as a loss in general for America, I'd agree again--though maybe not for the same reasons. But if you want to claim we were militarily beaten in Vietnam, that we "lost" the war, I dissent. That is NOT "re-writing history," as you alleged. It's the truth.
We didn't lose it. We gave it away, let them perish for a loss of will. And millions died or suffered for that, while the anti-war left cheered their "victory."

Exactly what the Democrats want to do with Iraq.

[Sam Basso]

Bush will succeed in Iraq, a stable government will form, and the wacko Far Left will still call it a failure.

I just wonder if they will do to the New Iraq what they have done to Israel... Call it illegitimate, side with New Iraq's enemies, push for divestiture in Iraq's institutions, and hold up New Iraq's Islamofascists as heroes.

Since the wacko Left thinks this war was illegitimate, they will regard any New Iraq as being illegitimate, and will thus push for the overthrow of that government by any means necessary.

I'm predicting the wackos will do it. Because they hate America, and they love an underdog, even if the underdog is an evil regime, a terrorist, or a mass murderer.

The wacko Leftists adore such "misunderstood heroes" as Arafat, Stalin, Mao, Che Gueverra, et al.

If they survive... I fully expect the wacko Far Left to give a Nobel Peace prize to bin Laden and al Zawahri. They did it with Arafat.

Stay tuned for the new intifada... backed by the wacko Leftists of the world.

Sam Basso
www.poochmaster.blogspot.com

[Justin]

Torchy, it seems you can't think in anything other than black and white--you're either for Bush or against him. I don't like Bush, but I can admit not everything he does sucks.

Tully, I'll agree with you, we weren't beat militarily in Vietnam, but that was the problem with Vietnam, it was not a conflict that could be won in a convential military sense.

[justin]

Now for some Bush bashing--for years after 9/11, our President is still incompetent and has failed at making us any safer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/politics/06panel.html?ei=5094&en=ff5dc7f68f55850f&hp=&ex=1133845200&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1134056155-g40OZ5NvM7hmCZymbArLHw

[justin]

One thing not to forget--Dean has (unfortunately) been correct on pretty much everything he has said about the war and the lead-up to it:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=Vff%2BA3onh%2FX7dvdZiZxXBG%3D%3D

[Alexandra]

All Things Beautiful TrackBack 'The D Stands For Defeat':

"The Democratic leadership has decided to elevate surrender to a party platform for the upcoming elections, with their national chairman, House leader, and last presidential nominee all running up the white flag as the Democratic war banner."

[justin]

Ed Morrissey notes that Dr. Dean's word's recall those of that well-known yea/naysayer (mentioned above) from some thirty-odd years ago. Kerry does it again:

And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs.
This man could have been our president. Ponder that.

If only we were so lucky. I'm immensely proud of Kerry--he volunteered to for the military, fought in Vietnam, and then came home and spoke his conscience. What exactly was Bush doing during this time? Getting drunk?

[baldilocks]

Justin,

The president volunteered for military service also. (And Kerry betrayed the military when he came home by meeting with the enemy in Paris.

Ever heard of Benedict Arnold?)

Now that we've traded facts that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, let me give you a little advice: you don't want to get into this particular p*ssin match with me because you will lose.

Play the cheap (and ignorant) shots at the president's service--when the subject is SOMETHING ELSE--at a place in which that type of tactic is more accepted.

A word to the wise should be sufficient.

[justin]

Baldilocks, the President volunteered for the National Guard, which, at the time, was what rich kids did to get out of service in Vietnam, and his service in the guard is sketchy at best. I don't really care one way or another and it has nothing to do with his Presidency (Clinton went off to Oxford during Vietnam too). I realize this isn't the direct topic at hand, but if you are critizing Kerry for his war and post war conduct, why is GWB off limits? That's all I'll say, and sorry for responing when you clearly wanted me to shut up.

[baldilocks]

Regardless of the facts of your statement, why are you bringing this up, Justin, in the context of John Kerry inferring terrorism to the US military? Merely to divert attention?

It's not working.

[bman]

Tully, I can give you a name of a battle that we lost. Lei Trang, you can read about it in a book named "Night of the Silver Stars."

[baldilocks]

Regardless of the facts of your statement, why are you bringing this up, Justin, in the context of John Kerry inferring terrorism to the US military? Merely to divert attention?

It's not working.

[bman]

My bad, too much rum last night, its Lang Vei not Lei Trang. Still a great book (Phillips) and a fascinating sidebar to Khe Sanh.

[justin]

Regardless of the facts of your statement, why are you bringing this up, Justin, in the context of John Kerry inferring terrorism to the US military? Merely to divert attention?

It's not working.

My mistake, actually. I started on your Kerry quote and kept clicklin through links until I got to Kerry's testimony re: Vietnam. By the time I came back, I forgot your quote was Kerry on Iraq, not Vietnam.

But, I'll defend Kerry's statement--He wasn't calling our soldiers terrorists, and it's a little disengenuous to take the quote out of context like that. He was saying that US soldiers don't know the local customs well enough to be acting as ground level police and anti-terrorism forces, and that is something that Iraqis should be doing. When US troops come into someone's house late at night to try to find someone they think is an insurgent, even if the troops are totally justified, it is terrifying to Iraqis and isn't very good public relations. And I agree, it's much better to have Iraqis doing this sort of thing.

So, yes, I'd rather have a man as President who understands that.

[Tully]

We abandoned Lang Vei, to be sure, after Westmoreland refused to reinforce the camp from Khe Sanh. We evac'd after we had inflicted roughly 3-1 casualties on the NVA and knocked out at least 7 of the 12 tanks they threw at it, when we had NONE there.

The Lang Vei battle kept most of a division of NVA away from the assault on Khe Sanh, and convinced the NVA not to throw their tanks into Khe Sanh. The NVA called it a victory for them, and at the end of the assault they held the camp, which was in ruins. Serious military historians have differing opinions as to who (strategically) gained the most from the Lang Vei battle, given the heavy NVA casualties and the elimination of the NVA tanks from the Khe Sanh assault. Victory is not easily defined some days.

We lost a smaller outpost, about 20 Green Berets, and 150 or so ARVN and Laotian irregulars. The NVA lost at least 7 tanks and 500 NVA regulars--and Khe Sanh.

(Khe Sanh itself is another subject, a MUCH larger battle that we indisputably and overwhelmingly won on the ground, and lost in the media. Up yours, Walter Cronkite.)

[Ken]

Think about this:

It is now 2005. VIETNAM!(TM) is now almost as far in the past as World War One was when Vietnam was going down for real.

A couple years ago, the PA system where I work tuned into an "oldies" station. Total playlist: about 40 songs on heavy rotation, repeated over and over and over. Of those 40, 20 of them were "Dope is Groovy!", the other 20 were "Get Out of Vietnam!" We almost went postal within two days. I was a kid during the Sixties -- I remember a wide variety of music, lots of experimental stuff, lots of what are now separate genres. It was more than Dope & Vietnam, guys!

[Laura(southernxyl)]

Here is a fantastic Paul Greenberg smackdown of that little communication by Howard Dean. Lots of good quotes in it.

[bman]

Yes, the 60's were more than dope and rock and roll, but for me cruising and drive ins, football glory and classroom success rapdily faded into oblivion outside Phu Bai during the battle of the candy stripe. Crimson and Clover over and out - 91b20 3rd. bgd. 82nd. Abn. 67 - 72 usarv