Wash. Post's Murray wrote that Petraeus will argue against "precipitous U.S. withdrawal" -- but who is arguing for it?
SUMMARY: The Washington Post wrote that Gen. David Petraeus "is expected to report to Congress next month that there are some signs of progress in Iraq and that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal could be disastrous." But Murray gave no indication that the term "precipitous withdrawal" is used by Republicans to attack Iraq withdrawal plans, nor did she cite a single lawmaker who has called for a "precipitous U.S. withdrawal" from Iraq.
In an August 31 Washington Post article reporting that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "said he is willing to compromise with Republicans to find ways to limit troop deployments in Iraq," staff writer Shailagh Murray wrote that Gen. David Petraeus "is expected to report to Congress next month that there are some signs of progress in Iraq and that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal could be disastrous." However, Murray gave no indication that the term "precipitous withdrawal" is used by Republicans to attack Iraq withdrawal plans, nor did she report that Democrats specifically reject that characterization, as Media Matters for America has previously noted. Indeed, Murray did not cite a single lawmaker who has called for a "precipitous U.S. withdrawal" from Iraq.
President Bush has repeatedly used the term "precipitous withdrawal," or variations of it, to describe proposals for withdrawal from Iraq, as have White House spokesman Tony Fratto, State Department spokesman Tom Casey, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), whose website, in a release citing an article claiming that "House Democrats ... have not laid out a program to deal with the aftermath" asks, "What would Iraq look like if the Democrats' plan for precipitous withdrawal were implemented?"
However, during a July 9 press conference discussing a Senate debate on Iraq war policy, Reid himself said that "[n]o one is calling for a precipitous withdrawal in Iraq." Similarly, Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) said during a July 10 press conference: "No one is advocating a precipitous withdrawal. In fact, our advocation is for something quite different -- a phased redeployment of forces, change of missions that are specific, explicit, that can be conducted by American military forces." Further, on the August 26 edition of ABC's This Week, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) asserted that "[n]o one in a responsible position in government is saying that we should pull the plug in Iraq and have a precipitous withdrawal."
As Media Matters documented, during a July 18 appearance on MSNBC, Murray claimed that Republicans would not support an Iraq withdrawal amendment offered in the Senate -- which she described as requiring a "hard and fast withdrawal date" -- because "[t]hey're just not willing to do that to the military." Murray did not explain what exactly the amendment would "do" to the military, nor did she explain how it represented a "hard and fast withdrawal date."
From the August 31 Washington Post article, headlined "Reid Opens Door to Pact With Antiwar Republicans":
Saying the coming weeks will be "one of the last opportunities" to alter the course of the war, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he is now willing to compromise with Republicans to find ways to limit troop deployments in Iraq.
[...]
During the week of Sept. 10, Congress will hear a progress report on the war from the U.S. commander in Baghdad, Gen. David H. Petraeus, and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker. After those hearings and a formal report from President Bush, lawmakers will renew their debate on the war.
That debate screeched to a halt in late July after the most poisonous confrontation since Democrats took control of Congress eight months ago. Reid convened an all-night session that infuriated Republicans, who blocked a Democratic withdrawal measure. Despite antiwar stirrings within the GOP, just four Republican senators broke ranks on the vote, and several chastised Reid, saying he wasted the Senate's time on a publicity stunt.
Reid then dropped the war debate, hoping to highlight Republican obstructionism. But the delay has provided the administration with breathing room to build its case that Bush's strategy is working. Petraeus is expected to report to Congress next month that there are some signs of progress in Iraq and that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal could be disastrous.
From the August 26 edition of ABC's This Week:
WEBB: In terms of the aftermath [in Iraq], no one in a responsible position in government is saying that we should pull the plug in Iraq and have a precipitous withdrawal. What we're trying to do is to say eventually we have to withdraw from Iraq. We have to draw down our troops. Even the military realities of the surge which have up-swung the cycles of deployment are going to mandate that we reduce our troops and eventually leave. We're not going to have stability in that region until the American troops are out of Iraq. We have to do it in a way that brings in the other countries around the region, allows us to focus on international terrorism and doesn't destabilize the region, but it must be done.
That would be, umm, nobody. Nobody in the Senate or House is asking for a "precipitous" removal of our troops from Iraq. Most are calling for a phased withdrawal and general draw down of our forces from that country, but of course, the truth doesn't sound as good as "cut and run" and other such phrases that a lot of republicans throw around against democrats who want to, you know, bring our troops home and out of harm's way and all of that really "bad" stuff that democrats want to do for our soldiers and all.
This is sort of like the whole Fairness Doctrine "debate" if you want to call it that. You'd think that there were 30 pieces of legislation pending in the House and Senate trying to bring that dinosaur back into existence, and yet the only people really talking about it are the republicans who almost universally oppose it, and have introduced legislation or have pending legislation against something that isn't even in existence anymore (sort of like how they want to ban gay marriage all over the place, even though most places don't allow it already), and of course our right wing talking head bloviators on the radio and other places who are railing against the Fairness Doctrine as if, once again, someone was actually talking about putting it back into being.
Of course, the truth is less sexy, and less sensationalistic, so we go with high level rhetoric and "truthiness" to use a Colbert term.
Hillary Clinton, that's who!
From the June 3 debate:
"Given that the circumstances in this country and in our world were essentially the same when you take office, what would be your top priority for your first 100 days?"
Hillary Clinton: "Well, if President Bush has not ended the war in Iraq, to bring our troops home. That would be the very first thing that I would do."
She did not "some of" our troops. She did not say she would begin the process, she simply said that she would bring our troops home.
These statements go over well with the Cindy Sheehan types, and they are the reason that the Dems took the House & Senate last year. And their lack of follow-through is the reason for the American voters displeasure with Congress.
It is so wrong to say one thing in your speeches, and something totally different in your policy statements.
Bush ( commander-in-chief ) Petraeus ( General ). I can guess what he is going to say publicly, specially while still in uniform.
The answer is: John Edwards.
He's the only person I can cite proof of. He wants an immediate withdrawal of 50k troops when he takes office...I would call that pretty precipitous.
Of course, we're arguing adjectives, which are often subjective....so we're probably just wasting our breath and typing fingers.
While this may be true (I haven't heard him say that, but I'm pretty sure he could have) the question does remain who in a current position of power is calling for anything even remotely like what the media says they are? Nobody...
Wait, wouldn't a precipitous withdrawal mean withdrawing from a precipice, as in moving away from the edge of a cliff? That doesn't sound so bad.
A precipitous advance, on the other hand, sounds like a lemming-like death wish, no matter how slowly one is advancing.
I agree that you're technically correct. But since John Edwards could be in power in less than 1.5 years, and Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc have not been terribly specific about what would happen if they had their way, I don't think that you can be genuine and say that the chance of a precipitous withdrawal is not great enough for the opposition to challenge it.
It is entirely possible that in 1.5 years, we might not have that many folks in Iraq anyway. By the time Edwards could take the White House (not likely to happen anyway, I don't believe), we'll have moved everyone over to Iran anyway.
If you go by the record, Reid and Pelosi, and the rest of the democrats have pretty much done whatever it is Satan Bush has wanted them to do thus far. They have put up some resistance, but then crumbled under his withering stare.
"The answer is: John Edwards. He's the only person I can cite proof of. He wants an immediate withdrawal of 50k troops when he takes office..."
Assuming Edwards got elected and did what you are saying he said (not doubting you but a link would be appreciated), that would mean a withdrawal of 50k troops out of approximately 168,000 soldiers and approximately 64,000 foreign contracters in January 2009 -- about a year and a half from now. I'm not sure I'd equate with that with a precipitous US withdrawal.
No? Drawing down at least 1/4 of the troops immediately is not pretty steep?
No, it's not too steep.
"precipitious withdrawal" would seem to mean withdrawing all our soldiers immediately. that's not what edwards proposed.
"Precipitous withdrawal" means steep withdrawal. Everyone has their own opinion of what steep in this situation is.
uh no, you don't get to make up your own definitions. as this shows it generally means done in "very great haste", "abrupt". no one i know favors that. you lose again.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/precipitous
I made nothing up. I am saying that people have different ideas of "very great haste" or "abrupt" would be in this situation.
Drawing down at least 1/4 of the troops immediately is not pretty steep?
In a year and a half? Hardly precipitous. May not even be steep at that point in time seeing as the surge is going really well by all accounts...
If I remember correctly, the troops got to Bahgdad very precipitously. it was like a drive in the park. I remember the chickenhawks proclaiming " shock and awe campaign ".
Republican Ron Paul voted against the war and would pull them out of Iraq quickly.
Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich voted against war and would bring them home fast.
Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson would bring troops home fast.
however fast kucinich would bring them home, he wants an international peacekeeping force to replace american troops as they return. not exactly an immediate unconditional withdrawal.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16123.htm
This means that you think withdrawing 50,000 troops in January 2009 would be "precipitous." That would be presuming that there had been no improvement in nearly 18 months, and calling the immediate withdrawal of 50,000 soldiers "precipitous."
Where exactly is the Army going to get all the men that will be necessary to keep our forces at the current level for another 18 months?
What is that smell?
"...precipitous U.S. withdrawal..."
Sniff, sniff....
Could this be one of the leftover aromas of Turd Blossom?
I wrote to this person to ask who specifically wants a precipitous withdrawal. I won't hold my breath, but if I get an answer I'll let you know.
Larry Craig denies that he likes homosexual encounters - Dem's deny that they want to have a precipitous withdrawal.
Both are in denial.
Dems haven't denied anything. How can they deny something that they haven't even brought up or talked about?
Oh, and nice strawman by the way. Good try at deflection and all. When someone starts talking about immediate withdrawal, come back and let us know. Seeing as how that vast majority of citizens in the US want to get our troops out in a short amount of time, even if the democrats did say they wanted to pull everyone out immediately, I'm pretty sure that there would be some good support behind that whole mess. But going by the democrats record on these things, they'll do no such thing. They haven't backed up anything they said about ending Iraq and getting our guys home yet, and they run Congress at this point in time. What makes you think they're in denial about anything? There is literally no proof there to say otherwise, but keeping making things up. Even a squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
Larry Craig denies that he likes homosexual encounters -
Nah he denied he was a homosexual not that he didn't like homosexual encounters.
Do you deny you are a moron? If you do then YOU are in denial
Near as I can tell Craig does hate homosexual encounters. That's part of his sexual thrill. Pretty sad one though. For a lack of any evidence to support your double negative, I'd say you're the one into denial.
How would you go about supporting a precipitous withdrawal. What kind of rhetoric goes with this? Just so I'll recognise it when I hear it.
The very first time I heard the word "precipitous" it came out of the mouth of Bill Kristol, the head of The Weekly Standard, a conservaative newsmagazine. It was used like a straw man so Kristol could knock it down. Subsequently, I heard Petraeus use it as well and some other generals. I'm having reservations about Petraeus and his report. He's the one who developed the "surge" plan; he's the one put in charge of implementing it; and he's the one who's going to make the evaluation as to the success of the plan. Under these circumstances, I have serious doubts that he'll come out and say "My plan failed."
MM Introduction to this thread:
(Reid) "No one is advocating a precipitous withdrawal. In fact, our advocation is for something quite different -- a phased redeployment of forces, change of missions that are specific, explicit, that can be conducted by American military forces."
Okay, Harry, a couple of points:
1) “Redeployment of forces”: To where do you want them “redeployed” and what do you want to do with them once they’re redeployed?
Not just Harry, but not a single Democrat has answered this in terms that make sense.
2) “Change of missions that are specific and explicit” The current mission is specific and explicit: Defeat those who are terrorizing the citizens of Iraq so that Iraqis can go about the business of establishing a working democracy. This has been articulated numerous times by Bush and every prominent spokesman in his administration.
Since Reid wants to “change missions” and he appears to claim that the current mission is neither specific nor explicit, please, senator, tell me what you have in mind.
Since Reid is probably not going to read this, can anyone on this thread tell me what would be a better specific and explicit mission “that can be conducted by American military forces”?
3) “Advocating a precipitous withdrawal?” Maybe Reid hasn’t said that lately but he has been saying over and over again on the floor of the senate and whenever he is in front of a TV camera that the “mission is a failure”.
If it’s a failure, Harry, why not withdraw ASAP? Why continue to pour blood, sweat, and tears into it anymore if it’s a failure?
Let’s face it, the Democrats have done a one-eighty on Iraq and are in a state of confusion driven by the need to both kowtow to the far left Democrat party base and yet ready themselves for the general election.
Good luck, Democrats. This is the age of instant replay.
Is this another "the dems have no plan" type of posting? Because that's really what it sounds like to me for the most part. And the funny thing is, is that the do have a plan. One Jack Murtha rolled one out a while back, and he was laughed at by the republicans, except now, it seems like his redeployment plan is something that they're looking at, or one just like it.
Good luck, Democrats. This is the age of instant replay.
Oh why don't we..... stay the course, stay the course, stay the course, stay the course, stay the course, stay the course, stay the course, stay the course, stay the course, stay the course, stay the course, stay the course
That's exactly what it is because the Dems don't.
But then, maybe I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, then the answers to the questions posed above (based, as you note, on a precise quote from Harry Reid) should be straightforward. So, the answers are ...?
No problem
1
Redeployment of forces”: To where do you want them “redeployed”
Personally I would prefer to redeploy them HOME. However we have bases in Qatar, Turkey and Jordan all of which could keep them in the area.
2
The current mission is specific and explicit: Defeat those who are terrorizing the citizens of Iraq so that Iraqis can go about the business of establishing a working democracy.
We had the election they have a government everything else is up to the. The people you want to defeat ARE Iraqis. They are killing each other over the power vacuum and they are killing US. Since those doing the killing dont glow in the dark yours is a prescription for staying in Iraq forever. Good luck selling that to the American people as for Dems having to pander to the FAR LEFT. Since the HUGE majority of Americans want the troops brought home and to be out of this war I guess that means MOST of America is far left. There is nothing left for us to do in Iraq. All the military objectives have been met and we have no credibility among the Iraqis to help them solve their political problems. Its time to come home.
!) What do you want to do with them once they’re deployed? (And BTW, I don’t think we have an invitation to deploy U.S. troops to either Qatar, Turkey, or Jordon)
2) If a “HUGE majority of Americans want the troops brought home and be out of this war”, it would have happened by February this year. The fact is what I said:
Democrats have done a one-eighty on Iraq and are in a state of confusion driven by the need to both kowtow to the far left Democrat party base and yet ready themselves for the general election.
The objective of defeating those who are terrorizing the citizens of Iraq so that Iraqis can go about the business of establishing a working democracy has not yet been met. The job isn’t done.
You’re whistling in the dark. No matter whether Democrats or Republicans end up in control of the White House, the troops will be in the Middle East until the job is done.
The US military is terrorizing the people of Iraq. Has been since 1992. Media selling us more terrorizing of the natives. Imperialism marches on.
So does liberalism.
Liberalism does not bomb children in their beds for corporate profits and then blame it on the victim.
Oh, my Gawd. Did you really say that?
My name's on it, ain't it.
The US Military does not terroize anyone. The only reason you feel confortable saying that is you are on an anonymous board. You should be asamed of yourself for insulting our fighting men and women like that.
I was infantry myself once. I know of whom I speak. We have an officer corps that ignores their men and the soldiers are of average intelligence or less, poorly trained, very poorly led. As a military historian, I have seen instance after instance of better handled and better behaved troops. Rommel's Afrika Corps didn't bomb weddings and then call the dead bridesmaids "insurgents". Winfield Scott never set up torture chambers in Mexico during his invasion. Some generals fight honourably....then you have the present Pentagon and it's war criminal leadership, who fight with DISHONOUR to our nation.
Honour does not come from loyalty. Honour always comes first. A man without honour is just someone else's dog.
I still don't see you defending your "terrorizing" remark.
Try to keep up we dont NEED permission we HAVE bases right now in Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar, Kazakstan, Uzbekistan and Djibouti.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/iraq.poll/index.html
Nearly six in 10 of those polled want to see U.S. troops leave Iraq either immediately or within a year. In addition, more people would prefer Congress to run U.S. policy in Iraq than President Bush.
60 or 75% is a pretty good majority in politics. I guess by your definition about 60 or 75% of Americans are far left.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/14/iraq-poll-2/
A new [link to www.foxnews.com] color="#330066">Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll conducted October 10-11 finds that nearly three in four Americans (73 percent) agree that U.S. troops should start to come home.
The war IS won, the occupation is untenable and we cannot help the Iraqis fix the problems that remain. The political problems that remain in Iraq are Iraqi problems and since about.
If you are going to throw numbers out let me refer you to the latest gallup poll:
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27946
which says what?
Mefirst, LocoLoki's link shows that Americans have very little confidence in Congress specifically, government in general.
These same Americans have more confidence in religion, and even more in the police and military.
Yes, the poll linked to was completely unrelated to the topic, it was just triggered by Solon's relevant polls.
I'm guessing Loco is a Hannity Man, just one branch below the ditttohead limb on the GOP tree. Any mention of low public opinion regarding Bush, the War, or any other pet failures of the right sets off a reflex in Sean Hannity to cite low approval ratings for Congress.
Because those Dems, in their short stretch as the majority, haven't cleaned up 6 years of GOPslop*, the obvious conclusion is that Republicans are really good.
I think I've got that right.
* Not a defense of the Dems wussiness in standing up to the Repubs, just saying it's hard to demonize a party when your most damning charge is that they're not doing damage control for your party'f f*ckups well enough.
SOLON was using his numbers to say that a majority of Americans want Congress to take over the war. I was merely offering a counter that most Americans have little to no faith in the current Congress.
We are fighting a insurgency fueled by foreign fighter from Saudi Arabia and Iran. They have even found Palestinians fighting with the insurgency. We get rid of the foreign fighters, help the Iraqis secure their borders and then we can think about leaving.
Have another glass of kool-aid
Note that MOST of the foreign fighters coming into Iraq are from Saudi Arabia. A much smaller percentage from Iran.
Most of the violence involves sectarian violence (civil war)
99% of the resistance is IRAQI. Natives. Natives who want us the hell out of THEIR country. We trespassing, in case you haven't noticed. The owners are shooting at us to get off their land. It's Red Dawn, with an all-American cast as the invaders and Mohammed Swayze and C. Thomas Sadr as the heroic Iraqi kids fighting off the bad guys for the flag and freedom!
You really don't understand people wanting to defend hearth and home from the barbarian hordes of Texas, do ya?
That’s exactly what it is.
If I’m wrong and you’re right about the “Democrat plan” then the answers to the questions posed above (based, you will note, on a quote by Harry Reid from the MM lead-in to this thread) should be duck soup for you.
… and the answers are: …?
It's always a strawman...ALWAYS.
It's the only way Republicans can make their critics sounds unreasonable.
The Democrats realize that it's not just troops there. It's support staff and private firms and mercs and billions of our tax dollars, lots of guns, crazy religious wackos on both sides and a huge clusterf*ck that cannot end well.
If they managed to get us to pull out now in any form, then the Republicans would begin the spin that everything was almost working and "the left" fifth column here at home ruined it...just like Vietnam.
I pity anyone trying to get out a message in this environment. Even if everything you say and do is perfect, people will make sh*t up and even recut footage of you to make you fit their ideas.
:-) The sky is falling. Oh, my Gawd.
Well, TI3geometry,
“Unreasonable” is what seems to pass for passion and truth on your side of the argument. That’s the problem. The chickens have come home to roost. You wouldn’t know it by hitting the left wing blogs, but take note (seriously):
A couple of things have happened in the past month: (1) Many Democrats who have been calling the Iraq war a failed cause have now switched their story to “the military aspects of the struggle appear to be going well for a change, but the political …(etc,)”, and (2) The media (I’m talking the vast bulk of the MSM which is and always will be in the tank for liberalism and the Democrat party simply because it’s in the genes) has been giving some inches and sound bites to item (1).
In the case of the Democrat party, it’s because the grownups know that, once through the primaries, the party has to win the general election and the average citizen, in spite of polls that are touted as saying otherwise, does not want the U.S. to lose in Iraq. In the case of the media, the MSM (i.e. the liberal media) has been suffering from lost revenues for quite some time and realize that they have to try reporting in at least a slightly less biased mode.
As for Vietnam, I’ll save that for a later post. Suffice to say, the citizens of South Vietnam are worse off under their Communist rulers than they would have been had we not caved to the left here at home.
In the end, both the war against jihad and the war between liberalism and conservatism will be won not in London, Bohn, or Tehran, but here at home.
OM, How many thime can you get "Democrat Party" into one post?
Before I can answer your brilliant point of wisdom, I must first ask a question. And since you are the Old Marine, I am sure you will have an answer.
Back to the beginning of this war which was approved by all..As Commander-in-Chief, would you approve a ground assualt on a soverign country controlled by a homicidal maniac who DEFINITELY has WMD's and has used them before? Would you put your troops in such harm's way? And if this maniac used his weapons what would be your response?
As for your quotes about Dems saying they are flip-flopping on the surge, did you make them up or can we have a reference? Because we all know exactly what Harry Reid said about "the war is lost" but it seems that only half of his quote every sinks into the NeoCon brain or keyboard. Next time for accuracy sake, read the whole quote.
Okay, POW, “Democratic Party” if it makes you feel better. Just force of habit: socialist in the socialist party, libertarian in the libertarian party, republican in the republican party … democrat in the democrat party. Is this illogical? (Just because you call yourself a Democrat doesn’t necessarily mean you are democratic).
I’d do exactly what Bush did, and he did it with the full approval, yea enthusiasm, of an overwhelming majority in both parties. (Note that Hillary and many of her Democrat party buds claim that they were “misled” by the pre-war intelligence. Pretty good deception by a dumb frat boy who couldn’t think his way out of a paper bag. Of course, that’s not what Hillary said at the time she voted for the war resolution. On the contrary, she and a lot of congressional democrats kept the session open until they could all weigh in with what a horrible guy Saddam was, how he was a danger to Middle East peace, a monster, we had a UN mandate and all of that.)
Hopefully, I wouldn’t let the “maniac” get to the point of using his WMD’s before I could wage preventative war against him - which is exactly what we did in the case of Saddam Hussein. In retrospect (nothing like 20/20 hindsight) I would have had enough of a trained military police force to overwhelm rioters etc., a situation for which we did a terrible job of reacting.
As for the recent seemingly perpetual argument regarding whether or not Dems and their buds in the media have done a one-eighty (I say they have. You say the haven’t, I guess), let’s see what events produce, say within 30 days after the Pateaus report. My bet is that the Democrats in congress will not even vote on pulling all troops out of Iraq on any timetable whatsoever. Your bet …?
Winner gets a steak dinner on the loser. Okay?
saddam didn't have any wmd. and the proof of that was the u.n. inspectors searching for two months before the war and finding nothing at the sites we sent them to. and that is a fact that bush lies about to this day. the inspectors only withdrew because bush told them to. bush wasn't concerned about wmd as much as he was invading iraq.
OM, Thanks for the compliment about being a Democrat who belongs to the Democratic Party. Only use that term because it is like Xerox, Kleenex, Windex etc. all have been used in our lexicon for years. We both know the term Democrat Party is a recent Con job with the emphasis on "rat". I think we can agree on that.
Steak, nah, how about a nananana. I believe that both sides of the aisle will agree that we start getting our troops out on a limited basis. It is what the Republans(oop, forgot the "ic") need for political reasons. If the Democrat" Party(we're even) wants to push for bringing the troops home, it is what a majority wants.
P.S. Never was a DEMOCRAT.
"As for Vietnam, I’ll save that for a later post. Suffice to say, the citizens of South Vietnam are worse off under their Communist rulers than they would have been had we not caved to the left here at home."
This is exactly the delusion I was talking about. We didn't "lose" in Vietnam because of protestors and people that disagreed with the war from the beginning. That's a lot of spin from the people that cuased the problem in the first place. We dropped over a ton of bombs PER PERSON in Vietnam. The lesson should be that you can't "liberate" people that don't want it, you can't nation build with bombs, and Vietnam was a debacle caused by corrupt polliticans and war mongers and they bear the entire responsibility for what went on there...just like in Iraq.
TI3Geom,
You are badly misinformed if you think we lost militarily in Viet Nam. You need to do some reading. You won’t necessarily get the straight skinny from the History channel, the National Geographic channel, or PBS as there is, at least, a liberal tilt to much of their programming. You’ll have to find some well researched and unbiased reading material.
The Tet offensive was the last, desperate gamble of Ho Chi Mihn. Had it not been for the success of the anti-war movement back home, North Viet Nam would have given up within a few months of an easily mounted U.S.-South Vietnamese counter offensive. Even afterwards, continued aid from the U.S. could have turned the tide, but the Democrat controlled congress totally cut off funds for the South Vietnamese (echoes of what has been going on with Democrats in regard to Iraq for the past four years).
Of course, no one can know how the PRC would have reacted. It could have been North Korea all over again with the Chinese (and, perhaps the Soviets) coming in to prop up their brethren communists before North Viet Nam fell.
actually i don't think he said we lost in a military sense, because he had "lost" in quotes. the fact is that ho chi minh had fought the japanese, the french and then the americans over a span of thirty years. what we should have done after ww2 is refuse to recognize the french claims to indo-china. we gave the philippines their independence in 1946, and that worked out well.
You are SO delusional. We invaded SOUTH VIETNAM. We dropped the huge majority of our bombs in SOUTH VIETNAM. They were NEVER going to stop. They kicked Ghengis Khan out of their country, the fought the French, Japanese, French again and they were NEVER GOING TO STOP. It is in their DNA to hate and fight foriegn invaders. You are brainwashed beyond belief. The History Channel a liberals slant? Man you are flat out delusional. Its a good thing people like YOU arent in charge or we would STILL have men dying in Vietnam and you would STILL be telling us that we were JUST about to win an occupation that was NEVER going to be won.
Hello Old Marine: - Happy Labor Day!
Fairy Tales begin with - "ONCE UPON A TIME."
Texas Tall Tales begin with - "YOU AIN'T GON BELIEVE THIS SH*T."
Your Old Marine Tales are like the ones from my home state of Texas. I don't have to read your Vietnam books because I participated in that war. I did four tours of duty in that war and I don't appreciate your mis-representations about my Vietnam experience.
Our young kids died in vain in Vietnam and now in Iraq. Patriotic supporters of our troops pressured us out of Vietnam and now out of Iraq.
I was so proud of the demonstators back home who wanted me out of harms way in an unwinable war. Just like Iraq!
I'm so happy GWB stupidly invoked the Iraq/Vietnam comparison. When I was in Vietnam he was cowering back home. He's the "Decider." He decided not to serve our country in Vietnam. GWB and Cheany are both cowards, chickenhawks and big time Girlie Men.
Colin Powell told Bush if you invade Iraq you will then own it. He fired Powell and hired a yes person in his place, (Condy Rice)
To answer your question, Bush Now Owns Iraq and if the "Democrat" (Your Word) cut the funding or force a pullout then it becomes the "Democrat" who owns Iraq and all the mess and blunders that RepubliCan'ts created in that region of the world.
No, I didn't spell it wrong.
RepubliCan'ts
Because they just -Can't stop the Iraq Blunder - Can't tell the truth - Can't stop telling lies - Can't win the House - Can't win the Senate - Can't keep feet in own stalls - Can't stop Hate Crimes - Can't kill Social Security - Can't lower Drug Cost - Can't Fund VA Hospitals - Can't pass Imagration Laws - Can't protect our Constitution - Can't help the Working Family - Can't stop helping Super-Rich. Etc. Etc. Etc.
I could do this more but it would take a few days. Do you get my drift, Old Marine? You must not be the old war veteran that I am because your knowledge of Vietnam seems to only be from books.
Welcome back Sam. We missed you.
OldMarine seems to be implying that after the Tet Offensive in January 1968, we had it pretty easy.
There were still more than 500,000 of us there in 1969 when I went. And the forces we faced were anything but "desperate" and on the verge of "giving up".
By then, everywhere we went the people of South Vietnam let us know that they wanted us out of their country.
It's too bad that thousands more had to die after the NVA were on the verge of giving up.
Correction:
I misoverestimated the troop level in '69. There were only (only?) 475,000 Americans in The Republic of Vietnam at the beginning of 1969.
Thank You Very Much - KING!
It's great to be back! Happy Labor Day to you and everyone else!
I was here briefly to say hello to Holly. I proposed to her on line, and Five or Six guys proceeded to challenged me to a duel.
She turned six shades of red and turned us all down. But I've been keeping up with this "Far Left Swamp Pit" without my powerful computer. I'm on a $25 Mac right now.
Everyone must make every effort to take our country back with a major focus on the upcoming presidential election.
Here in Arnold The Governator's CalyFornia the touch screen voting has been terminated (Not a Pun). I think it has to do with trusting the Republican't made equipment.
Our Republican Governor here is acting more like a Liberal, Progressive and a Democratic office holder. He's working for the people, working families, the middle class and the poor. I voted for him. He's driving those NeoCons to the nut house.
Sam I Am
Another question or two for you, T13Geom:
You don’t think the South Vietnamese were fighting for their liberty?
You don’t think people in Southeast Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, the horn of Africa, Cuba, or even Venezuela necessarily crave liberty and freedom from tyranny? You think it’s strictly a U.S. phenomenon?
you might want to take a look at this. it explains how elections that were scheduled nationally in vietnam in 1956 were not held because it was feared that ho chi minh would win. it also explains how ho worked with us during ww2 and he was not considered a communist ideoloque, but more of a nationalist pragmatist. vietnam was a good example of how we could have made an ally instead of an enemy.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552642/Vietnam_War.html
Sounds like you have a resonably good grasp of military history. Ho Chi Mihn certainly fought both the Japanese and the French just as Phillipine patriots fought U.S. troops right after the U.S. took over the Phillipines from Spain. The problem for us is simply that Ho Chi Mihn, like Castro and the Sandanistas were aligned with our Communist enemies: the USSR, and the PRC. You may be right in your assessment that Ho Chi Mihn could have been an ally. But then, we'll never know. Viet Nam today is as communist as the PRC and Cuba. Is Venezuela next?
it's not military history. it's political history. and the whole problem with our anti communist fervor is that it made us align ourselves with what were frequently the wrong people. don't you think it's more than possible that ho chi minh accepted help from the soviet union because that was his only choice at the time? and you're talking about fighting for democracy. both the sandinistas and chavez in venezuela were elected. and now ortega is president of nicaraqua again, but without a lot of the same tactics. what happens is these guys found out that rhetoric and anti americanism don't guarantee good government. chavez is now fueding with some of his former allies. i say we get out of the way and let him. we need to stop making ourselves the bogeyman. and i don't think that communism is a viable form of government. in fact, when reagan said that it would end up "on the scrap heap of history", i agreed. but a blind acceptance of anyone willing to declare himself "anticommunist" did not serve us well. and it's the same attitude that finds us in iraq. in the end, they will fight it out, unfortunately.
Right you are: “political” history.
Our “anti-communist fervor is well placed.
We don’t live in an ideal world but we do live in a world where some are continually seeking dominance over others, whether out of feelings of superiority, gamesmanship, or just plain fear that not to dominate is to be dominated. Without core values in terms of what it means to be human and what the role of government should be in human affairs, one is likely to be played by politicians using an ideology of some sort to make their case for dominance: environmentalism, religion, secularism, socialism, etc.
The framers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution got it right about the inalienable rights of the individual and, equally important, set up a government system which has so far worked fairly well (with a lingering question still after 230 odd years regarding the framework of judicial powers). Do you doubt that the confederacy would have continued with slavery and done all in its power to annex “slave states” had the confederacy survived? Do you imagine that Hitler’s Nazi party would eventually have produced a system which nurtured individual liberty, a bill of rights and all of that for all of its conquered territories - or that the Japanese in the forties would have done so for those they conquered, or the communists still in power around the world, or the Islamic militants?
No, you probably don’t, although for all I know you might allow yourself to go off on an intellectual what-if and convince yourself that maybe if we stayed out of such goings-on that things would work out.
I’m not in that camp. My experience and education tell me that politically it’s ultimately a binary world and the shades of gray that liberals love to contemplate turn black and white pretty quickly when one’s basic freedoms are under attack. Thus, I think you’re wrong when you say that “a blind acceptance of anyone willing to declare himself ‘anti-communist’ did not serve us well”. I reject the word “blind” and claim it’s more of an “eyes-wide-open acceptance” of things as they are. Ask anyone who has actually lived a large part of their life under a communist government.
And “yes”, on the contrary, anti-communism in the last half of the twentieth century has served us well just as did anti-slavery in the nineteenth. We’re a stronger nation in terms of rights and humanism because of it. The blood and the toil were worth it. It’s worth it today as well.
That is the problem with Manichean black white thinking it is simpleminded. What you are in effect saying is that another country has no RIGHT to make decisions we dont agree with and therefore we have the RIGHT to invade or overthrow such governments if their PEOPLE dont do what WE want. We overthrew Democratically elected leaders in Iran in 53, Guatemala in 54, Brazil in 64, the Dominican Republic in 64, and Chile in 73 because WE didnt like who THEY elected. That kind of imperialistic, morally repugnant action comes from the very kind of simplistic thinking you are pushing. That only WE are adults and only WE get to make everyones decisions for them or they might make the wrong ones, that is ones WE dont like. Try to imagine if China were the worlds great military power instead of us and if THEY told us they think Bush is a tyrant and overthrew OUR government or invaded it. I am guessing you would have a different attitude about that. As usual a conservative touts that other countries are bound by standards we would never accept for ourself and WE give ourselves the right to act in ways we would NEVER accept from countries we dont like. To use the word prinicples in the context of this totally unprincipled , arrogant, policy framework is laughable
uh, i do believe that we were attacked by the japanese, and that germany declared war on us shortly after. and it was that liberal franklin roosevelt who helped the european nations under attack, before we entered the war, with the "lend lease" program, which the republican isolationists opposed. and like almost every other democrat, i supported going into afghanistan, which is where bin laden was. you're confusing the right of self defense with your black and white world view that requires attacking everyone we disagree with. but then we are going to be very busy. and you just brushed right over what i said about the sandanistas and chavez being duly elected. that is the system you claim you want, correct? or should we overthrow them like we did an elected government in chile in 1972? you're mighty selective in your morality. as i pointed out, when it looked like ho chi minh could actually win an election in vietnam, they were not held. the french were kicked out of both algeria and indochina, and they are not remembered fondly in either of those situations. the british, on the other hand, decided in the 40's and 50's that they would give all their colonies independence. they are quite liked in many of those former colonies and have relationships with their former colonies through the commonwealth. your contention that we just go kick some ass whenever we want is what brought us the disasters of vietnam and iraq. so go ahead and saddle up there, duke, and ride on in any ol time you feel like it.
and i notice you had no answer to my comment about the inspectors being in iraq and bush invaded anyway and still lies about it.
MeFirst,
Right. Let’s talk about “free elections” - in Venezuela for instance. Where is Venezuela now headed under Chavez? More free elections? How about elections in Cuba, China, Iran, Russia, and on and on? How about the resistance of Democrats here in the U.S. to tamper proof ID cards for our own elections?
I ceded you your point about the Vietnamese patriot, Ho Chi Mihn and even threw in a note about the aggressor U.S. in the Philippines after the Spanish American War and the Philippine patriots who resisted us. I can also throw in the Euro-American onslaught that violated the “rights” of the American natives back in the 18th and 19th centuries and how great it was that Custer and his boys got theirs at Little Big Horn. So, you know what you can do with your “black and white world view” and “just go kick some ass” comments. Your morality is no more high minded than mine or anyone else who posts to this forum. You know what I said about politics being ultimately binary when the chips were down, yet you overlooked what I said and created something else - I suppose to put me back in my right-wing extremist racist box.
If you want to carp about the indignities and inhumanity of dominators throughout history and hang it all on people with my political point of view, go ahead. All you do by putting words in your opponent’s mouth, distorting his speech, and calling him immoral is make war.
My point was that the founding fathers laid out the moral guidance in the Declaration of Independence and set up the governmental framework which has worked reasonably well, better than anywhere else in any major country on earth, in terms of following that moral guidance. Hell yes, it’s been bloody as in the Civil War, the labor movement overcoming their tyrant bosses, and on and on. That’s just the way it’s been and the world is a better place now in terms of tolerance and communications among human beings than it was a century ago. It’s also a much more dangerous world with nukes and other WMD’s proliferating as they are.
Finally, I noted that when one lacks core convictions about what it means to be human and what the role of government should be in human affairs, one is likely to be played by politicians using an ideology of some sort to make their case for dominanc: communism, environmentalism, religion, secularism, socialism, etc.
Have a good Labor Day weekend - and keep up the good work.
uh, "black and white" were your words first, were they not? something about the liberal shades of gray becoming black and white? and if you didn't like my tone, maybe you shouldn't dismiss other people as naive when you're the one who doesn't have his facts straight. you ask where is venezuela headed, more free elections? well, i don't know, do you? should we remove chavez because he might cancel elections? when he does i will be glad to join in the condemnation. i'm not crazy about him anyway. maybe you missed the part where i said he's one of the guys that thinks anti-americanism is enough to run a government. but as of now, he is their elected leader. which seems to be something you are unable to reconcile with your continuing references to the constitutional system of our government. did i say something that leads you to think i have doubts about our system? it's a good system. who's disagreeing? [well, you maybe, you don't like it in other countries.] as for elections in "cuba, china, iran, and russia", cuba and china do not have them. where did i approve of that? iran and russia do have them. as for my hanging the injustices of the world "on people with [your] political point of view", i said i agreed with reagan that communism would "end up on the scrap heap of history". in case that wasn't clear, that means i think it's a bad system. and you talk about being "played by politicians using an ideology". you must have been looking in a mirror because you were the one played by bush. you're repeating all his lies about wmd and how we had to invade before saddam used them. he didn't have any. the inspectors were there and found nothing, a point you still refuse to address. if your poor little feelings get hurt, then maybe come with some facts next time, instead of a lot of cliches.
Old Marine:
You're correct for once. Because Bush and his Republicans are playing you big time. They're playing Lead Guitar on you. You have bought the whole 10 yards of real estate in the NeoCon sales job, the Fox propaganda and the Conservative Monopoly of talk radio.
You're straight out of the Bush Playbook, Long on Rhetoric and Short on the Truth.
Such as your depiction on my Vietnam War Experience. I responded to your comments and reported the truth about the Vietnam/Iraq comparison that Bush has so foolishly invoked. My reply to you was Post #63. You probably already know that.
It's a shame Bush "Decided" not to serve our country in Vietnam and thereby learn the lessons of such wars. When he didn't learn those valuable lesson's he was doomed to repeat the same mistakes. The Republican Iraq War is the biggest foreign policy blunder in our history.
Close to 4000 of our poor young kids have died in vain for this blunder. This war was called a blunder and criminal by Republican Senators who are brave and honest enough to LEAD instead of FOLLOW like you have done.
And now even Republican Senator Warner is calling the troops home.
Sam I Am - Vietnam War Veteran
More BS talking points. Ho was a committed nationalist who thought he could count on us after WW2. The Sandanistas were ELECTED. You have some weird idea that other countries being free means they are free to do what WE tell them. The Venezualans LOVE Chavez. I am sure you WISH we had the RIGHT to make all decisions for all countries but that is like the OPPOSITE of freedom its hegemony.
Of course the South Vietnamese were fighting for their liberty they were fighting US for their liberty. We were involved in the coup and execution of Diem their elected leader when he started saying things we didnt like. We STOPPED the reunification elections CALLED for in the 54 Geneva accord because according to Eisenhower Ho Chi Minh would have won by 80% of the vote. Whether they are better off or not isnt the point but whether it was a mistake or not it was THEIR decision and not OUR decision.
There was a reason I put it in "".
Anyone who is "repressed" usually craves "liberation". In Vietnam and Iraq we don't seem to have gotten our calulations correct in this area.
Liberty? South Vietnam was a fascist dictatorship, a brutal police state. The US refused to allow UN-mandated elections, installed a Catholic fascist named Diem, who ruled in the Chiang mold. We then controlled and even deposed his regime for a military junta, all to wage a senseless civil war for Michelin rubber and US Steel iron ore, which we could have just bought from them anyway. Three million Vietnamese dead from the war. Wasn't ever worth it.
Personally, I think it was all about ensuring a US colony somewhere in Asia. We Americans must rule the world, right? God said so. After all, we annexed Hawaii in a coup and stole the Phillipines from a native republic. We still won't leave Okinawa. The constant face of imperialism.
What you ReNAMBLAcans just wont face is Americans are tired of your lets get as many Americans killed as we possibly can policy in Iraq. They want the troops home. EVERY Poll says that. Your ReNAMBLAcans know that too they are just setting up the scenario where when the next DemocratIC President brings the troops home you will be saying we were just about to win in Iraq and the Dems cut and ran. Whatever is being said the whole whackamole policy isnt going to work. The Iraqis LIVE THERE. No country wants to be occupied and about 80% of the Iraqis want us gone. They arent going to stop killing us. Everything that can be done militarily HAS been done. The political problems we cant help with we have zero credibility with the Iraqis
The term "precipitous withdrawal" is obviously a negative term inaccurately applied to any position not fully supportive of our continued occupation of Iraq. It's pretty dumb to argue this point.
The question is- does the media use this negative term in their reporting on the war? I think the answer there is obvious as well.
If you've been paying attention, you'll see that this sort of thing happens all the time. An inheritance tax becomes a "death tax" and so on.
The result of the media using loaded terms to describe a position in a debate is to give the advantage to the other position. If I can pick and choose a description, say for example "Imperialist Aggression" to describe America's actions in Iraq, and if I can get the media to use my term every time they refer to the American presence in Iraq, I've obviously won an important battle in the war of words.
One month ago National Public Radio's Morning Edition broadcast a report on Mike Mullens, who was facing a confirmation hearing as the new Chief of Staff. In this report, reporter Tom Bowman casually stated Mullen's position as "having been against the surge", yet not advocating a "precipitous withdrawal". I called this use of a loaded term into question:
"Date : 7/31/2007 9:36:14 AMHow is it generally viewed in the news business when a reporter accepts verbatim a position generated by a political operative?This morning Tom Bowman, reporting on Mike Mullens confirmation hearing, encapsulated his position on Iraq as "having been against the surge", yet not advocating a "precipitous withdrawal".No one is advocating a "precipitous withdrawal" from Iraq. This is a mainstream Republican talking point, used strictly to frame the debate about Iraq in terms favorable to the president.That Mr. Bowman should support this frame in his report indicates either intellectual laziness or subtle support for this framework. Whichever it is, please retire Tom to Monhegan Island or the slopes of Jackson Hole as soon as possible. He's earned it."
(Mr. Bowman states in his online resume that he'd rather be skiing. I say- let him!)
In response to my complaint, I received this:
"Thank you for your follow up comments to NPR.After recieving many emails about Mr. Bowman's statement, the Office of the Ombudsman is conducting an investigation to determine if the statement was in fact unbiased. Thank you for your comments and concerns regarding NPR's journalistic integrity. Sincerely, Chantal de la Rionda Assistant to the Ombudsman National Public Radio"
No word on the results of this investigation yet, but I'm not holding my breath.
There is no such thing as a precipitous withdrawal. Withdrawing 160,000 troops, associated equipment, weapons, and support personnel from a chaotic war zone, even in a phased manner is logistically challenging and dangerous to trrops, allies, and Iraqis alike. It will take quite some time.
Or the short answer is we screwed the pooch big time in Iraq and unscrewing the pooch is going to be long and messy.
I'm all for "precipitious" withdrawal. Heck, as a president, I'd make our troops pack up and move out within 2 months, just to put the fear of the boss into the generals. It can be done. It should be done.
There are senators and representatives asking for a withdrawl strarting as early as this month or the bginning of the year. The meaning of "precipitous" is extremely or impassably steep. Some might find that precipitous, I know I do.
So what this post is saying is that if someone uses a colorful adjective in the media whoever they are reporting about better have used that same adjective?
Military units are trained to bug out as fast as possible. WE could have the entire US force in Iraq on the move within TWO WEEKS if so desired. The host countries may be a little non-plussed though. The logistics are still very simple. When supply ships and planes come with cargo, they go back full of men. That's how we got them there. That's how we bring them back. We could be airlifting out thousands within days of the bug out order. We got the equipment and the organization to do it. Or can't the US military even manage a quick and efficient extracation maneuver? Winfield Scott would not be pleased.
Just because we can does not mean we should.
Isn't Bill Richardson also arguing for an immediate withdrawal. His answers during the YouTube/CNN debate certainly indicate he is thinking that way. By the way, it does seem as though the current debate revolves around 3 opions: 1 - withdraw quickly - Iraq descends into complete chaos quickly; 2- withdraw s-l-o-w-l-y - Iraq goes chaotic slowly; or 3- "stay the course" - current chaos continues - The Surge notwithstanding. Nobody seems wiling to recognize that Iraq is no long viable as a national entity, just as Yugoslavia was no long viable after Tito's death. I favor Option 4 - partition. The Shiites get to go join Iran - Sunnis get to go with Syria or Jordan (maybe Turkey) - the Kurds get independence.