Reporting on Bush's VFW speech, media failed to note his previous disavowal of Iraq-Vietnam parallels
SUMMARY: In reports on President Bush's speech arguing that withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq would "lead to widespread death and suffering as it did in Southeast Asia" following the Vietnam War, numerous media outlets failed to point out Bush's previous statements disavowing parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, while other reports did not note any criticism of the speech.
Reporting on President Bush's speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), in which, as The Washington Post noted, he argued "that withdrawing U.S. troops would lead to widespread death and suffering as it did in Southeast Asia" following the Vietnam War, numerous media outlets failed to note that Bush has attacked political opponents in the past for comparing the current conflict in Iraq to Vietnam. In an April 2004 prime-time press conference, Bush was asked how he "answer[s] the Vietnam comparison," and responded, "I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy." And in a June 2006 press conference, Bush said of the Iraq-Vietnam analogy, "I don't see the parallels."
From the April 13, 2004, press conference:
QUESTION: Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half Americans now support it. What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?
BUSH: I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops and sends the wrong message to the enemy. Look, this is hard work. It's hard to advance freedom in a country that has been strangled by tyranny. And, yet, we must stay the course, because the end result is in our nation's interest.
While he did not repeat his assertion that the Vietnam analogy "sends the wrong message to our troops ... and to the enemy," in a June 14, 2006, press conference, Bush claimed not to "see the parallels" between the two wars:
QUESTION: Do you see, as some of your critics do, a parallel between what's going on in Iraq now and Vietnam?
BUSH: No.
QUESTION: Why?
BUSH: Because there's a duly-elected government; 12 million people voted. They said, we want something different from tyranny, we want to live in a free society. And not only did they vote for a government, they voted for a constitution. Obviously, there is sectarian violence, but this is, in many ways, religious in nature, and I don't see the parallels.
In his August 22 speech to the VFW, however, Bush used the Vietnam analogy to argue against withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq:
BUSH: There are many differences between the wars we fought in the Far East and the war on terror we're fighting today. But one important similarity is at their core they're ideological struggles. The militarists of Japan and the communists in Korea and Vietnam were driven by a merciless vision for the proper ordering of humanity. They killed Americans because we stood in the way of their attempt to force their ideology on others. Today, the names and places have changed, but the fundamental character of the struggle has not changed.
[...]
We're still in the early hours of the current ideological struggle, but we do know how the others ended -- and that knowledge helps guide our efforts today.
[...]
Finally, there's Vietnam. This is a complex and painful subject for many Americans. The tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech. So I'm going to limit myself to one argument that has particular significance today. Then as now, people argued the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end.
[...]
The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution. In Vietnam, former allies of the United States and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea.
Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There's no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America. Whatever your position is on that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields."
An August 23 Los Angeles Times article on the speech asserted that "Bush has been skittish in the past about analogies to the Vietnam War, largely because of the negative connotations it continues to hold for many Americans." The article also extensively quoted an unnamed "former official who left the White House recently" defending Bush's "new communications strategy":
The newest element in the president's communications strategy was a willingness to discuss Vietnam, a conflict that critics of the Iraq war often cite to suggest that the United States should cut its losses in Iraq and begin withdrawing.
Bush has been skittish in the past about analogies to the Vietnam War, largely because of the negative connotations it continues to hold for many Americans.
[...]
A former official who left the White House recently said the new communications strategy was based on two arguments the administration has been making for a long time.
"One, we can win. And in past cases, such as Korea or Japan, people who made confident predictions about the impossibility of succeeding were eventually proven wrong. Two, the consequences of failure are so bad we should be willing to pay a price to win," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is no longer permitted to speak for the administration.
What's different, the official said, is that the president is taking a perceived weakness -- historical comparisons to Vietnam -- and turning it into a strength.
"Vietnam has been wrung around the administration's neck on Iraq for a long time," he said. "There are many analogies or comparisons or connections that could cut against the administration's position, but this is a connection that supports the administration's position. . . . They want to say, the last time you took a drastic option like abandoning our allies it didn't work well. Let's take a more measured one. They're setting that up."
But while the article asserted that Bush has simply "been skittish" about the Vietnam analogy, it did not note his previous statements explicitly rejecting it. Further, the article quoted the unnamed "former official" at length expressing his support for Bush's use of the analogy, but included no criticism of the analogy, either by Democratic politicians or by historians.
Several other news outlets reported criticism of Bush's use of the analogy, but did not note that Bush had previously rejected the Vietnam comparison:
- CBS Evening News: Reporting on Bush's analogy, White House correspondent Bill Plante quoted historian Douglas Brinkley asserting, "You're not going to be able to sell the lessons of Vietnam being that we should have stayed a decade longer."
- The Washington Post: An August 23 Post article included criticism of Bush's analogy from Democratic Sens. John Kerry (MA) and Edward Kennedy (MA).
- The New York Times: An August 23 Times report on the speech also quoted Kerry's criticism, but similarly failed to note the president's conflicting statements about whether or not there is a legitimate comparison to be made between the war in Iraq and the Vietnam War.
- The Wall Street Journal: The August 23 Journal report (subscription required) on the speech noted criticism by Steve Simon of the Council on Foreign Relations, who asserted, "The president emphasized the violence in the wake of American withdrawal from Vietnam. But this happened because the United States left too late, not too early." It also quoted Ret. Army Brig. Gen. John Johns, who asserted, "The longer we stay there, the worse it's going to get," but it did not note the president's conflicting statements.
- USA Today: The August 23 USA Today report noted criticism by Johns and Kennedy.
By contrast, both NBC and ABC noted that Bush had previously criticized the Iraq-Vietnam analogy:
- NBC's Nightly News: Introducing a report on the speech, anchor Brian Williams asserted, "And after years of rejecting any comparisons to Vietnam, today President Bush invoked the Vietnam War as a way of saying the U.S. must stay the course and not pull out." NBC White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell began the report by asserting, "After years of pushback rejecting the Vietnam-Iraq comparison, today in Kansas City, before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the president made a turn and embraced his own Vietnam analogy." O'Donnell also noted that Bush's comments "contrast what he said last year when asked if he saw a Vietnam-Iraq connection," before quoting Bush asserting at the 2006 press conference, "I don't see the parallels."
- ABC's World News: The August 22 broadcast began with chief White House correspondent Martha Raddatz asserting, "For years, administration critics have likened the war in Iraq, to the quagmire in Vietnam, a comparison President Bush has strongly rejected. But today, speaking before a supportive audience of veterans, Mr. Bush found a comparison to Vietnam he embraced." The report also noted criticism of Bush's speech by presidential historian Robert Dallek, who asserted that the analogy "just doesn't make any historical sense to me," as well as criticism by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE), who asserted, "If, in fact, the president does not change policy, we're going to see a repeat of what we saw in Saigon at the end of that car, with helicopters lifting people desperately clinging to the ladder of a helicopter to get out of Iraq."
From the August 22 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
PLANTE: In addition to supporting [Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-] Maliki, the president also defended his own Iraq policy. Speaking today to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Mr. Bush offered a new rationale for staying the course: Don't let Iraq become another Vietnam.
BUSH [video clip]: One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields."
PLANTE: Historian Douglas Brinkley says there's no real parallel.
BRINKLEY: You're not going to be able to sell the lessons of Vietnam being that we should have stayed a decade longer.
PLANTE: But if things don't get better soon in Iraq, members of Congress aren't going to care as much about past history as they are about future elections. Bill Plante, CBS News, the White House.
From the August 22 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
BRIAN WILLIAMS (host): And after years of rejecting any comparisons to Vietnam, today President Bush invoked the Vietnam War as a way of saying the U.S. must stay the course and not pull out. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell is traveling with the president.
O'DONNELL: After years of pushback rejecting the Vietnam-Iraq comparison, today in Kansas City, before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the president made a turn and embraced his own Vietnam analogy.
BUSH [video clip]: Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price for American credibility. But the terrorists see it differently.
O'DONNELL: The president claimed America's modern enemy, Al Qaeda, saw weakness, that if a war became unpopular enough, the U.S. would leave. A parallel campaign launched today involves new TV ads, fighting the PR battle.
IRAQ WAR VETERAN [video clip from Freedom's Watch commercial]: I know what I lost. I also know that if we pull out now, everything I've given and sacrificed will mean nothing.
O'DONNELL: Injured veterans and military families appear in these spots from a group backed by Bush donors, friends, and former press secretary Ari Fleischer. The spots target 20 congressional districts.
IRAQ WAR VETERAN [video clip from Freedom's Watch commercial]: It's no time to quit. It's no time for politics.
O'DONNELL: On the other side, a TV campaign from a group long critical of many Bush policies, targeting Republicans, like Maine Senator Susan Collins.
COMMENTATOR [video clip from Americans United for Change commercial]: Tell Susan Collins it's time to take a stand. End the war.
O'DONNELL: Mr. Bush's comments to the VFW today contrast what he said last year when asked if he saw a Vietnam-Iraq connection.
BUSH [video clip from June 14, 2006]: I don't see the parallels.
O'DONNELL: Some historians claim today his use today of Vietnam was too simple and not accurate.
STANLEY KARNOW (Vietnam historian): He's evoking Vietnam for political purposes. What he says about Vietnam is not entirely true.
O'DONNELL: Democrat and Vietnam veteran John Kerry calls the president's comparison irresponsible, while presidential candidate [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] reacted, saying the U.S. needs to stop refereeing the war and begin getting out now. Kelly O'Donnell, NBC News, Kansas City.
From the August 22 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
RADDATZ: For years, administration critics have likened the war in Iraq, to the quagmire in Vietnam, a comparison president Bush has strongly rejected. But today, speaking before a supportive audience of veterans, Mr. Bush found a comparison to Vietnam he embraced.
BUSH [video clip]: Then as now, people argued the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end.
RADDATZ: The president asserted that it was the American retreat from Southeast Asia that led directly to the carnage and displacement that followed.
BUSH [video clip]: The price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms, like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields."
RADDATZ: Historians quickly seized on the president's remarks.
ROBERT DALLEK: What is Mr. Bush suggesting? We should have stayed there forever? We should have invaded North Vietnam? It just doesn't make any historical sense to me.
RADDATZ: Reaction from Democrats was swift, as well, with some making their own comparisons.
BIDEN [video clip]: If, in fact, the president does not change policy, we're going to see a repeat of what we saw in Saigon at the end of that war, with helicopters lifting people desperately clinging to the ladder of a helicopter to get out of Iraq.
This at first looks like one of the weirdest arguments Bush has tried to make about Iraq. On so many levels inviting comparisons to Vietnam doesn't work for him, including the personal fact that he was a dodger in that war. But what they are doing here is sneaky and important in a way many people are missing. This is a rewriting of history that began in earnest back in the Reagan years. The real lessons of Vietnam make their agenda difficult to sell. So they've been selling the idea now for decades that the only thing we did wrong if Vietnam was lose. They're ignoring the fact that we found there was nothing to win by blowing up more Vietnamese or invading more bordering countries. The real lessons of Vietnam would have kept us from going into Iraq. That is part of Reagan's legacy (and Rambo's) and it's significant that Bush is going that way now. This argument is more important than people seem to realize. If we hadn't let them create their macho myth world they never would have been able to turn us so badly into a culture of warrior worshipers. Ike warned us about people like this after he helped win the big one. So did Orwell. Maybe it's time we started to listen.
Well said, and very accurate. I haven't seen them lately, but several Conservative posters have stupidly proposed that we need to "take the gloves off" in Iraq so that we can "win". Of course, they never explain exactly what that would entail. I have visions of Abrams tanks rolling through neighborhoods and artillery barrages against apartment buildings. I guess that sounds exciting to warmongers who think war is a video game, but I'm not sure how it fits Bush's rhetoric about bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people.
Jon Stewart had a soldier on last night who co-authored the new Counter Insurgency manual. He was very bright and articulate, and had a great sense of humor. He said that our army has been built to fight other armies head on, and that the Iraq war is new territory. He said that winning this requires a multi-level approach, only one of which involves force, and that as a last resort. This is precisely what John Kerry was ridiculed for saying during the 2004 campaign. Too bad Bush didn't listen to people like this before he blundered into Iraq.
It really is part of the Reagan legacy that this is conventional wisdom to the right. I mention Rambo because in the 80's there was a palpable movement both with political leaders and in popular culture to redefine the lessons of Vietnam. In some ways the current generation of rabid militarists created themselves in a reaction to what happened in Vietnam. Apparently it feels better to strut and brag than face painful truths about ourselves. Not a very difficult thing for the likes of Reagan or Rove to manipulate. Trying to understand this mass delusion, for me, is directly related to trying to understand the blatant stupidity of invading and occupying Iraq.
Very interesting SUNDOG. Very insightful and well.......I couldn't agree more.
thanks achrispage
Like Vietnam?
So if George W. Bush were 18 again right now, and since the National Guard is in Iraq this time, what would he do to avoid going there?
Well I would say the ol' trick knee is acting up. The reality is that when people of his wealthy background start getting drafted to the meat grinder we will see a different GOP stance on this war.
Since it's so super-critical we "win" like we didn't in Vietnam, Bush will surely reinstate the draft, and ask his daughter to exchange the wedding dress for a flak jacket. So we can win! If he doesn't do those things, then he wants us to lose, and is a "defeatist" and hates the troops and America.
yes it's wikipedia, but this is about an australian who has done detailed studies of cambodia, and concluded that it was our "secret" [from us] bombing that created sympathy for the khmer rouge initially. in other words, had we not been bombing the hell out of the country, they might never have turned to them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Kiernan
The Curious Effects of Chemicals on Learning...
Maybe Duhhbya's degree in history (yes, he has one) was obtained by pure dumb luck during his oh-so-hazy-days at college.
What really pissed me off, though, was the blanket coverage the MSM's ball-chasing puppies gave to Duhhbya's delusions less than a week after they totally ignored the words of some of the grunts he'd sent into that hell-hole of a clusterf*ck.
Good puppies! Goooooood puuhhh-peeeees!
Bush flip-flopped on Vietnam. Will the media call Bush a flip-flopper?
My father is a Vietnam Vet, it is so insulting what Bush did yesterday. Insulting and just plain wrong.
Bush lied
Thousands died
Now for W's pride
They continue the slide
Kind of like , he tried to kill my Daddy so now I have to invade Iraq. Bush and the GOP never stop lying.
The comparisons with the Weimar republic are getting more and more accurate by the day. Republicans are now in full force with their version of the Dolchstosslegende.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” —Joseph Goebbels
Found this on another site. Maybe everone has seen it, but worth reading again.
The History Boys By David Halberstam Vanity Fair
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_070507A.shtml
John Warner has come out and said that it's time to start to bring our troops home. At last a bit of common sense from the leaders of the GOP.
Warner wants troops to start coming home by Christmas, but he says he's against a "timetable."
In other news, Warner also said that he believes the sun rises in the West, and that the sun rises in the East.
Bush Iraq Comparisons to Past Wars are Nonsense
http://greytheory.blogspot.com/2007/08/bush-iraq-comparisons-to-past-wars-are.html
Bush was against the Vietnam analogy before he was against it. Flip flopper!
(I can't believe no one posted this obvious dig yet!)
By the say, nice post, Sundog. Even those critical of the Vietnam analogy are saying all sorts of false things about Vietnam, including we just could have won if we had a better strategy, and that Vietnam was a civil war. Will US citizens ever get the facts about this war right?
Grr! Get the punchline right if you want to tell a joke, FMP:
Bush was against the Vietnam analogy before he was for it.
The only "news" program that would dare show GWB rejecting the Vietnam analogy and then embracing it would be The Daily Show. The others, Keith Olbermann excepted, don't like to muss W's hair.
This is further evidence that Bush is an empty suit...Dick Cheney's sockpuppet, if you will. He contradicts himself on a regular basis.
The Democrats are missing another opportunity here. They should have a TV spot running NOW juxtaposing Bush's statement comparing Iraq to Vietnam and his earlier statement condemning such comparisons.
As pointed out above, this is revisionist history, a GOP specialty. Apparently, they never really thought they'd have to fabricate excuses to stay in Iraq, and some junior speechwriter just now came up with this one. I'm sure he got a big fat bonus.
Read this...
[link to www.consortiumnews.com]
Contained therein is a quote from the elder George Bush that may help explain President Numbnuts insane refusal to apply logic to his clusterf*ck in Iraq:
"After U.S. ground forces administered a 100-hour drubbing to the overmatched Iraqi troops, the elder George Bush declared in his first post-war remarks, 'By God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.' ”
Unfortunately, George H.W. Bush's dopey son has resurrected the Vietnam syndrome and injected it with steroids. Could it be that Dumbya can't face his father if he allows his Iraq adventure to end in anything less than a glorious flag-waving victory, like we had in Gulf War I? This, of course, is assuming that Puddinhead George is actually in control, which is a stretch.
How many lives is George Bush's ego worth?
Nice to see the Bush Derangement Syndrome in full flower.
It is possible to use elements of the Vietnam experience and note the similarities. Yes there are similarities and there are differences.
So many here accept their own version of events and daily make up story line after story line to suit their own perceptions. Nerzog's last post is a great example, but there are others. Yet when Bush offers up the unpleasant similarity that will result from premature withdrawal from Iraq, somehow that is misinformation?
Yes, it possible to accept some similarities and reject others, just as so many have done here. It would be nice to see some rational discussion, but finding that is like finding a needle in the haystack as one wades through another thread full of Bush bashing and infantile name calling.
"So many here accept their own version of events and daily make up story line after story line to suit their own perceptions."
You may have a point there, many of us, conservatives included, engage in speculation...but when we do it, it's irrelevant blogosphere chatter. What do you call it when the leader of the free world does it?
>>Nice to see the Bush Derangement Syndrome in full flower.
You then write:
>>It would be nice to see some rational discussion
Yes, it would be nice to have rational discussion. Accusing those who disagree with you as being deranged is probably not the way to do this.
I also should have pointed out this. First you say:
>>Nice to see the Bush Derangement Syndrome in full flower.
Then you say:
>>but finding that is like finding a needle in the haystack as one wades through another thread full of Bush bashing and infantile name calling.
You see a little contradiction here?
There is no contradiction, conservatives engage in tough dialogue and harsh realities, liberals live in delusional realities and spout pointless insults from their unhinged little minds.
Isn't that simple? :)
Ah, now I get it! Thanks!
We expect nothing less from a Bush Idolotry Syndrome sufferer than to tell us OUR analogies from Vietnam are suspect but HIS are right on. The delusional view from Planet Wingnut usually works that way.
You've had a busy week FMP you get some slack for all your hard work.
MickD, NBC and curiously ABC both made note of shrubs flip-flop. No slack for either of them, though I'm pleased NBC is giving Obermann some mainstream time this Sunday.
AA; If I was of a mind to bash anyone, it would not be something to walk away from with a smirk on ones lips. Bashing is a another victim of inflation, for at least the last six years.
Bush did not compare the war in Iraq and Vietnam in this statement. He is clearly comparing what happened AFTER we pulled out of Vietnam with what could happen if we pull out of Iraq. That is completely different than equating the 2 wars themselves. Granted, our dummy-in-chief should have chosen his words more carefully, but who would expect him to do that?
I expect him to choose his words more carefully when he speaks of the War in Vietnam and makes illogical comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, yet denies the obvious things that are similar about both wars.
He insults the million's of people who did serve in Vietnam when he talk's about our "early withdrawal".
I don't remember anyone wishing we had stayed in Vietnam when the war ended.
The only ones talking about "premature withdrawal" from Vietnam are the Chickenhawks who refused to fight and those whose boys were not sent to become men in hell.
Yes, and Bush also got it wrong about the withdrawal. The killing in Camboda happened before the withdrawal in '73, and Pol Pot was helped to power by the US's illegal and horrific bombing of that country.
As Kerry points out, the killing of Vietnamese by Americans was far greater during the war than the killing of Vietnamese by Vietnamese after the US's withdrawal. The war in Vietnam killed 3 million Vietnamese, 1 million combatants and 2 million non combatants, so I find it hard to believe that the death rate was even close to that after the war ended.
"I don't remember anyone wishing we had stayed in Vietnam when the war ended."
You're pretty much right on that, but I do remember people wishing there would have been a more definitive victory. Additionally, I do remember people watching the devasting aftermath unfold in the region after we left and wished that could have been avoided.
Right now, we are close to that same mindset. If we pull out of Iraq, it may be true that most would not wish we were still there. But the death and destruction that would exponentially increase in the reason will make people wish something could be done to stop it. It will also give the anti-military/hate-America crowd the opportunity to label America as a country that goes in, agitates, kills, and leaves people for dead. Let's make sure that doesn't happen. I'm not sure if thats what Bush is getting at here, but I certainly dont want America to just get out of there and once again be looked upon as an aggressor who leaves countries without really improving the conditions there.
As I posted above, the devastating aftermath was not nearly as devastating as the devastating foretmath, what came before the US withdrawal. Also, no one mentions that there would have not been any devastating aftermath if the US hadn't lied and invaded a country against international law, another parallel not mentioned in the media.
Yes, the killing could get worse if the US leaves in Iraq. But it could also remain the same. It is pretty bad as it is, and at some point the US is going to have to withdraw. If we withdraw in 10 years, there still might be an all out civil war.
The political situation in Iraq is getting worse each day.
We won the war a few weeks after it began. since then our people are caught between both sides of a religious, civil war. There can be no military solution to the problems in Iraq today.
Without a political solution we will be occupiers. We don't have the manpower to keep this up.
To keep going, a draft will be necessary. Maybe that's what the right needs. They need to know that it will take more than talk to end this, it will take their children's lives being put on the line for what they believe.
Occupiers? I didnt know the US had laid claim to ownership of the land. The report stated that we are killing about 1,500 terrorists and al-queda operatives every month. That's a proactive offensive assualt on terrorism, why would you want that to end? The whole crux of the anti-iraq war movement as I see it, is based in the fact that the terrorists aren't in iraq, but rather afghanistan and other places. Facts proving that they are, and that we are mopping the floor with them hurt the anti-war crowd, dont they?
The report shows we are killing 1500 insurgents a month. Most of those are not Al Quaida. We have created the terrorists in Iraq. Your argument is like saying we will create a dirty hospital so we can fight the germs in that dirty hospital rather than the clean one.
The recent reports show that threat of Al Quaida are greater than before we went into Iraq.
"We have created the terrorists in Iraq."
Saddam was the most outspoken and public sponsor of terrorism in the world, which is one of the reasons (that you probably don't see as valid) we invaded iraq. If I am to accept your statement in any way about us creating the terrorists, I would have to blame it soley on the immoral culture that hollywood and the irreligious left has held up in America, and sent around the world as the pinnacle of freedom of speech, expression, perversion...take your pick. I mean, we have religious extremists who refuse to take a sip of alcohol and cover their women in sheets. They are smacked in the face with the indecent culture America spreads around the world, and they act out with terrorism against us because they don't want their daughters to become druggy sl*ts like britney spears, and they don't want to have to stone their sons to death for becoming gay. I am in no way excusing their terrorist behavior, but I do see a link here. So when you say "we have created..." I will assume you are speaking about the the valueless leftists.
John,
You are crazy. Please provide some backup for your statements about Saddam.
And, that's not what he meant about creating terrorists and if you don't understand that, then there is no point in having a discussion with you.
If overthrowing a brutal dictator, rebuilding a country, instilling democracy, giving people a chance to vote, building them schools, building soccer fields, providing supplies, and taking in their refugees to our country creates terrorists....that is even more proof that the terrorists are complete psychotic fools who we need to obliterate.
Now, if Iraq fails to maintain the liberty we have unconditionally helped them achieve so far, that is not our fault. The terrorists hate the "new iraq" because they hate democracy, it's just not part of their ideology...and in that sense, yes, more terrorists are created because of the situation there...
You know, this situation is like many liberal institutions/ideas. They start off as a well intentioned initiative and digress into something unexpected and rotten, such as the welfare state.
You are becoming unhinged we invaded their country, killed a few hundred thousand of them. Iraq isnt liberated its occupied that is like the opposite of liberation. There had never been a suicide bombing in Iraq in recorded history before we invaded. You have the rightwing talking points down pat, reality? not so much.
I'm sorry John with many digits.
Had I known you were going off the deep end I would not have engaged you in a discussion about the wars in Iraq and Vietnam.
When you went on your rant about soccer fields and painted schools, I was half expecting that you'd go all the way and let us know about the ice cream and pet bunny rabbits we sent to the Iraqi children.
And John, no one hates democracy or freedom. They hate imperialism, occupation and air raids.
Air strikes are not pretty from the ground. and regardless of what the war merchants tell you, there is no such thing as a smart bomb. Even the smartest we have are indiscriminate in their killing.
Of course you''ll say that we were being benevolent giving them a taste of freedom, hoping they would like it and demand more.
Keep telling yourself they hate our freedom, they're going to follow us home and God loves the good old USA.
And change your Depends regularly.
It is pretty elementary to observe the radical muslims who want to instill sharia law in parts of the free world and conclude that they hate freedom and the evil they perceive it to bring. Simply put, anyone who favors Sharia Law hates freedom.
Now I will address your attempt to make a parody of me like I am some kind of Bush-bot:
"Keep telling yourself they hate our freedom, they're going to follow us home and God loves the good old USA."
-I've already addressed the hating of freedom, the radicals do. They ARE NOT going to follow us home, the are ALREADY here, and have been for a while. The Ft. Dix Plot, the JFK Plot, the car in North Carolina that ran multiple people over on the sidewalk while the driver was proclaiming jihad and "allahu akbar," must I continue? What about the known terrorist training compounds existing on US soil....Islamberg in New York? So, their not coming here, they are aready here; and as long as our borders remain open and easily passable they will keep flooding in here. Finally, if you want to bash God, the church, and the Christian nation that you live in, go do it in front of a church in the South. I'm sure the kind gentlemen there will be happy to give you a lesson in just how much God truely loves the USA.
Yeah you are an intenet toughguy, how impressive. So they hate freedom that must be why they are attacking Canada and Finnland, and yet they arent. Bogus, mindless, brainwashed talking points.
Islamberg?
Nice!
You were able to malign two different cultures with one word, not to mention the one city in this country that has suffered the deaths of thousands by terrorism.
You might like to look more closely at the Pizza Plot at Fort Dix. That's my neck of the woods. No one was that excited about the "plot".
Every pizza place and every military person interviewed on thwe local news laughed because believe it or not our military bases are not that porous.
And it's funny you mentioned the south. That's where I am now. I can't believe all of the impeach Bush bumper stickers.
We have real problems in this country and very real threats.
You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you or looks different is a terrorist sympathizer. You could not be more wrong.
And this is not a Christian Nation, but a free nation. i took no swipe at God, but did take a shot at those who would think that god would be on their side while we are killing and being kiled on a battlefield.
I've been there, God was nowhere to be found.
"You know, this situation is like many liberal institutions/ideas. They start off as a well intentioned initiative and digress into something unexpected and rotten, such as the welfare state."
Hmmm. I think a few edits for accuracy...and viola!
You know, this situation is like many neo-conservative institution/ideas. They start off as a well intentioned initiative and digress (sic) into something unexpected and rotten, such as the War in Iraq.
You are just ranting, now.
>>Saddam was the most outspoken and public sponsor of terrorism in the world
This is really humorous. Do you care to provide any proof for this false statement? You are saying he sponsored terror more than any other person in the world. That is plain wrong, as our own government issued reports that showed he had no connections to Al Quaida and that he led a secular regime.
As for your Hollywood rant, I would like to see you back that up.
On the other hand, I am talking about CIA and other policy reports.
Skeptical, Funnyman:
I made my statements with the mindset that they did not need sourcing because the fact that Saddam supported terrorism in a number of ways was common knowledge...especially for well-read intellectual liberals like yourselfs. Regardless, it took me all of 2 seconds to find a plethora of sources to back my statement. This one is a nice, concise summary: [link to www.whitehouse.gov] The second one here is longer and more detailed, but very informative: [link to www.husseinandterror.com]
I understand if you want to unconditionally disagree with anything and everything our government does when it is run by somebody with an "R" in front of their name, but to deny that Saddam supported terrorism is to deny absolute reality.
The 1993 example is the one the CIA said was the LAST bit of international terrorism they can assign to Saddam. The examples given come from the 70's and 80's during which time he was our ALLY. It didnt seem to anger us enough to even break diplomatic relations THEN but NOW its an excuse to invade? That doesnt pass the laugh test. Giving the families of suicide bombers is bad but so does our good ally Saudi Arabia. Are we going to invade Saudi Arabia? I notice the claim that Iraq was sheltering Abu Abbas. True, a reprehensible man and one that had done NOTHING in more than a decade.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2952879.stm
He ended up in Baghdad because there was nowhere else for this aging militant or terrorist leader to go.
He and his kind have been partly overtaken by the new zealots from al-Qaeda, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who are motivated by religion as well as nationalism.
Even Israel allowed him in and out of Gaza a few years ago as it accepted that he had given up violence and was supporting the Oslo peace process. Israel could not prosecute him under the terms of the Oslo accords anyway.
I notice they didnt mention Abu Nidal, who was shot dead by the Iraqis.
Salmon Pak was a COUNTERTERRORIST base as our own Pentagon admitted. There was NOTHING there that indicted Saddam from AFTER the time he was our good ally except the paying after the fact of the families of suicide bombers just like Saudi Arabia does. I understand you regurgitate the propaganda reflexively and complusively but it doesnt mean we have to take it seriously. This FAILS to show Saddam supporting terrorism anywhere NEAR the time we invaded.
And I understand that you will complusively deny any shred of data that might support an administration with an "R" in front of it, but you might have fallen off the boat with this one. You acknowledge the fact that Saddam was providing funds to the families of suicide bombers (trying to somehow excuse it or marginalize it by the fact that so does Saudi Arabia) and then you go on to state that the data does not prove that Saddam was involved in any sketchy activity in recent times leading up to the current war. Well, he was providing this kind of money right up until we toppled him. Therefore, the fact that you accept that act of support of terrorism, then say he was not recently doing anything to support terrorism is a lie, and a stupid statement.
Your definition of supporting terrrorism is pretty broad we dont even COMPLAIN to Saudi Arabia when THEY do it but its a reason to INVADE Iraq when THEY do? It doesnt pass the laugh test nor does it in ANY way support your assertion that Saddam was one of the worlds most outspoken and public sponsers of terrorism in the world. I read MYSELF George Tenet say that the CIA could not connect Iraq with ANY acts of international terrorism for a decade. I think paying the families of suicide bombers is bad, however if it is so bad it means we HAVE to invade when will we invade Saudi Arabia? Again you FAILED miserably to support your contention that Saddam was one of the worlds most outspoken and public supporters of terrorism at least at the time we invaded. You regurgitate the mantra like rightwing propaganda but when it comes time to back it up you fail to cough up the evidence
I suspected the argument would lead to this point, which is why I waited to point this out. Do you exclude the brutal tactics that Saddam and his sons used on their own people from being act of terrorism? They are, even if they were only domestic. Now, why arent we attacking Chavez who is close to treating his people the same way? I don't know. Why aren't we invading Iran, where it's people are terrorized by by the government...including the stoning of gays and lashing of guys that have a drink? I don't know. Why arent we invading China, who is currently killing its christian citizens? I dont know. Why aren't we attacking Saudi Arabia? I don't know (but I do know that our "compassionate" government is granting thousands of additional student visas to the Saudi youth...where is the logic in that?) My intention was not to question our invasion of iraq, but to look into the terrorism carried out by Saddam.
Who missed the part that Saddam was condemned by the same "Islamo-Fascists" that Bush says are our enemy? By the still uncaptured (I believe President Bush promised him to the American people "dead or alive") Al Qaeda terrorist head Osama Bin Laden who condemned Sadaam as a fake Muslim, secular modernist? Who missed the part that the fundamentalists within Saudi Arabia financed 9-11, and that most of the terrorists were Saudis? Sorry to disrupt another Bush propaganda narrative with the truth but there was not an Iraqi amongst the 9-11 bunch.
(As a reader of WWII history, I have to say I found Bush's comparision of Dec 7 to Sept 11 bizarre, did he miss the part where Japanese military pilots flew in clearly marked Japanese planes from a Japanese carrier group parked in the Pacific, and an acutal Japanese national in the person of the Japanese Ambassador hand-delivered a post-attack official threat to the US from the Japanese Empire. And Franklin D. Roosevelt declared War on Japan, the country that attacked US soil on Dec 7, 1941.)
The same rationale that is used to justify an unwarranted invasion and now this zealous demand for heavy continued US military presence skips and turns without context, as if Bush's words have no integrity, that they disappear when convenient, and that his actions are meaningless. Flip flop on Vietnam, WMD, 'mushroom clouds', Iraq=9/11; the war will be paid for by their own oil revenue; it will last 6 weeks, OBL can run but OBL can't hide...
The problem for me with the naysayers who promise doom and gloom if we get out of Iraq is their continued use of discredited rhetoric about why we went in the in the first place, which is then quickly ignored to assert that it doesn't matter why we were there, that's the past, and then the sadly familiar assertion that we can't leave now because though it wasn't like Vietnam before, it will be like Vietnam if we leave. Please, please, if you are going to use an historical comparison, use an apt one, and test its merits critically and objectively for real lessons before launching it in a public speech.
The Bush administration has been so wrong, for so long, about so many things that they promised us were true. Credibility is the problem. And a pronounced failure to understand any lessons of history that do not serve their ideology or worldview. They've demonstrated intellectual laziness and technical and strategic ineptitude in planning for the war & the occupation; I suspect that their own draft plans for withdrawal are as wrongheaded as were their plans for occupation - "We will be greeted as Liberators." If Bush's odd observations and interpretations of American history are any guide, the brazen laziness starts at the top.
Such vile hatred of liberty.
We hard-working, salt-of-the-earth brothers and sisters are called terrorist sympathizers because we dare question the very questionable morality of our foreign misadventures.
How utterly subservient and absolutely typical of the bootlicker authoritarian follower to compare dissent to treason. For it's definitely treason being alluded to in that D'nesh D'souza-esque screed just issued.
It's a source of pride among liberals that we will not relinquish our liberties to become religious fundamentalists to secure appeasement of a handful of ruthless, murderous fanatics.
One has to wonder why the right-wing lusts to be dominated by their authoritarian masters. Do right-wingers need to be punished harshly to feel anything at all? Are they so vacated of tenderness they can only traffic in death, distrust and hate? That's the only sensible conclusion to draw given their need to be just like the fundamentalists they claim to despise.
According to the CIA we had NO evidence of any Iraqi involvement in international terrorism for a decade so no Saddam bad as he was was NOT one of the worlds most outspoken proponents of terrorism. In the 80's when he was our ally, that would have had some merit. By the time we invaded it hadnt been true for a long time. Iraq had decided the game wasnt worth the candle about the time they killed Abu Nidal in Iraq. Your delusional take on the left is just stupid. For instance lefty as I am I consider myself a religious person and most of my liberal friends are also. Just because your brainwashing has convinced you of something doesnt mean it has any connection with reality. Rent a clue.
You replied to my post, yet you didn't say anything about what I had written except for taking the word "occupiers" out of context.
I stated that if no political solution is in place then all we can be is occupiers.
If I were you, I'd hold off on the "mopping the floor with them" comments.
Overwhelming force is of little value when fighting an insurgency. As long as there are thousands of American troops nearby, most of the insurgents will either lay low or go elsewhere.
That's the nature of this type of war. It's their country. They're not going anywhere.
As in Vietnam and Algeria the insurgents will always find replacements to take the place of those who've been killed or captured. We no longer have the manpower to keep this quagmire going without resorting to a draft.
We are occupying Iraq to claim anything else is pure delusion. We are in THEIR country with foriegn troops that is the very definition of occupation. We are killing 1500 or so PEOPLE a month in Iraq to pretend they are all terrorists is also pure delusion. Every people have a right by international law to armed resistance to occupation. Some of them are terrorists not all of them. Say China invaded and occupied the US would you call all Americans who killed Chinese occupiers terrorists? Its silly to invade a country kill the people then snivel when they kill us back.
"It will also give the anti-military/hate-America crowd the opportunity to label America as a country that goes in, agitates, kills, and leaves people for dead."
True. Lets stay so that they can only label America as... "a country that goes in, agitates, kills, AND stays to babysit the very mess it created."
Yes John, It could have been avoided ...if we hadn't INVADED Vietnam in the first place. Where did you geys get the notion that any war is a good war? Do you really not see how sick that is? Do you really not see that if we function that way my grandkids won't have much of a world to live in? Arguing with you people is all we can do. But you're in an alliance with corporate dough, religious fanaticism and jingoistic, xenophobic nationalism. If you guys win this cultural war this nation that you claim to love so much is doomed. Think that's hyperbole? Take a deep breath and think about it. Fer God sakes think.
That's guys not guys and I don't know what happened to my font there. It's weird because that was sort of a raised voice kind of a post but I honestly don't know how to oh ok didn't notice that before. Hey it does this too. I like to write but I'm not much of a computer guy I guess.
"He is clearly comparing what happened AFTER we pulled out of Vietnam with what could happen if we pull out of Iraq."
I think you're reaching with that one. If there are no similarities between the two wars, why would we have any reason to think that the aftermath of a withdrawal would be similar? You can't have it both ways.
And he applied many things that didn't apply to the pullout. Pol Pot actions had little to do with us other than encourage poeple to beleive he could help them after we bombed Cambodia.
Donno if this will work, so if you'd like to see authenic bashing try Live Leak.com/view?i=757_1187963465&p=1 ,Ted Nugent gets something off his chest.
Another Chickenhawk heard from.
Ted is such a bad-ass, yet when he had the chance to fight, he dodged the draft.
Not sure how true it is, but if you use the google and enter Ted Nugent draft you can read the rumor about how far one man will go to become a coward.
Remember, Bush said we attacked Iraq to make democracy flower in the region. A democratic Iraq would force other dictatorships in the region, like Egypt, to become democratic, which would serve the US and the whole world.
No Bush seems to be backing off that as well. We want to replace Saddam with a Saddam.
Bush was for democracy before he was against it. He was against Saddam before he was for it.
BLITZER: I don’t know about you, but I keep hearing suggestions from some influential elements out there that what Iraq really needs is a strongman, someone not necessarily like Saddam Hussein who was a thug and a killer, but someone, let’s say, like a Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan or a Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.
http://crooksandliars.com/
How curious.
The forever caucus is chiming in with tender concern for the lives of innocent Iraqi's. The forever caucus is trying to play concerned Americans like cheap guitars!
They don't care about the lives of foreigners so many thousands of miles away. Just look at the enmity generated toward our southern neighbors. The welfare of foreigners does not register with the forever caucus.
If they did care it never would have come to this. If they cared, the very idea of a single Iraqi civillian death would have turned their stomach long, long ago and they would have gnashed their teeth resisting the warhawks.
No.
This is about control.
This is about appealing to core concerns of Americans as a means to control our personal sense of safety, the kind of safety only an authoritarian big daddy conservative can provide through his willingness to subvert liberty for security in a world of might makes right.
Vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. These are the concerns so callously exploited by these opportinists.
Think about it. Read the speech. Is he calling for any fundamental change? No.
This is stay the course rhetoric.
He makes no plea for humanitarian effort, diplomacy or tactical shift. He is just fine with the steady as she goes killing of foreigners.
This is new and improved Crest.
I am intrigued by assertion of Bush (and the right wing chattering class) that if the US had remained in Vietnam ad infinitum there would have been no genocide, (no "killing field" in our vocabulary), in Cambodia. This is the curious "if" approach to public discourse to make a distortion of history serve a weak current premise (stay forever) to justify a misguided war without a plan.
I understand that there is some disagreement about the role of the US in the rise of the Khmer Rouge which had existed for a decade or so before the US withdrawal - was the overthrow of the US installed Lon Nol caused by the US withdrawal from the area or from the intense bombing campaign waged by the US on Cambodia (more bombs dropped on that tiny country than all the ordinance dropped during WWII) that popularized anti-Americanism and Pol Pot (and the opportunistic Prince Sihanouk) and fueled the overthrow, and rise of the Khmer Rouge. (see recruitment figures for Khmer Rouge before and after the US bombing of Cambodia.)
The truth is, despite the "if" games of President Bush, there was a genocide in Cambodia and the US knew about it at the time and failed to act (not the first time or the last, sadly). it was only through the invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam in Dec 1978 that the genocidal fascist Pol Pot was deposed and the genocide ended. Remember that the US had recognized the Khmer Rouge government as the legal and legitimate government of Cambodia (because it was anti-Vietnamese - "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" - sound familiar?), and so urged the UN to grant it recognition. The US again sided with Pol Pot and Norodom Sihanouk and the Peoples Republic of China and condemned Vietnam for its invasion. The Soviets flexed their muscle by supporting Vietnam, as an "in your face" act to China to assert influence in that sphere. The American left (notably Jane Fonda) publicly condemned Vietnam as an aggressor nation (since it fit in with the domino narrative at the time) while failing to understand that the Khmer Rouge was waging a war with Vietnam over disputed territory in its eastern border, and engaging in the genocide of Cambodians and ethnic Vietnamese, ethnic Chinese, and ethnic Chams. After the Vietnamese invasion and end to the genocide, the US (Jimmy Carter) then began an economic embargo and broke off diplomatic relations with Cambodia and the Vietnamese installed government, and until about 1984, the US and particularly the Reagan administration officially and adamantly denied that any genocide took place in Cambodia under Pol Pot since our government supported the Sihanouk-Pol Pot faction fighting the Vietnamese. The US also downplayed the subsequent invasion of Vietnam by China in 1979 (in retaliation for the invasion of its client state the Khmer Rouge Cambodia in 1978) since it served as a Cold War wedge between the USSR and China, and we wanted to curry favor with the Chinese to help facilitiate and "normalize" trade with China. (Walmart thanks you.)
For people who believe the Vietnam war was less complicated than Iraq, you just need to read and remember that American hubris and idealism about other countries wanting to be like us has not ended well for them or for us in the last half century. The US political estabishment broad brushed all SE Asians and all communists just as the Bush administration does the Middle East and all Muslims - our repeated refusal to understand nuance and difference condemns us to repeat the mistakes of the past, again and again. If the Bush administration wants to have serious discussions on the lessons of the past, and it wants to avoid a genocide, let it do three things:
1. ACT now in Darfur and end the genocide there!!!
2. Have an honest review of the present situation in Iraq and end our role in fomenting the conditions that contribute to destablization and further ethnic/political/religious division and hatred.
3. Admit that not everyone actually "envies our freedoms", and just because we know we have the best political system in the world, our own beloved system mandates that we allow others to have the right to self-determination, even if it means they freely choose not to be like us.