I heard from Harry Shearer’s Le Show that the U.K. is about to rotate a third of its troops out of Iraq (mostly Basra, I imagine) in a “routine” changing of the guard, and that the 60 civil engineers from New Zealand are leaving soon as
well.
Shearer also mentioned that the Col. Tim Collins, whose exhortation to his men was so widely distributed online, has now retired from the Royal Irish Regiment and is speaking freely about the war in Iraq, saying its about as morally correct as “common assault” and complaining about the lack of a plan to deal with the power vacuum that resulted inevitably from toppling the Ba’ath regime.
Bush has not just recapitulated his father’s presidency as farce but has now also rekindled the horrors of imperial overreach (“Vietnam syndrome”).
I recall that one of the ways Kerrry beat Weld was in debate, when challenged on his then-blanket opposition to the death penalty, where he said “I know something about killing [or words to that effect],” and went on to suggest the idea that state-sanctioned killing degrades us all.
Swift Boats and Killian memos actually aren’t irrelevant to today’s adventures in the middle east. The Kerry campaign needs to remind us that Kerry learned from Vietnam not to spawn war for no good reason, and that the right-wing pro-Vietnam war-evaders internalized entirely the wrong lesson and have now done something worse than any of the “Democrat wars” (as Dole so bitterly put it) of the previous century.
This entry appeared in a slight different form originally in the Well’s politics conference, called How Will Bush’s Bombing of Iran Backfire?.
Comments
3 responses to “Vietnam not irrelevant to today”
FACTS:
1) I am a Democrat.
2) Saddam Hussein sponsors global terrorism.
3) George Bush removed Saddam with extreme prejudice after an attack on our soil by an Islamic terrorist group.
3) John Kerry, “our” candidate, can’t make up his mind, and most recently has condemned Bush for protecting our country by attacking terrorism at its roots
THOSE ARE INDISPUTABLE FACTS.
Of the two, I trust Bush to fight terrorism and protect my family.
Dispute this, if you will:
“Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.” (Kerry, December 16, 2003)
“Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war.[…] I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism” (Kerry, September 20, 2004)
“I have always had ONE — ONE position on Iraq.” (Kerry, September 21, 2004)
What the hell is this man thinking, and how on earth did we choose him as our candidate? Surely we could have done better.
These facts are indefensible, no matter your affiliation. Kerry is a pathetic choice for a candidate in this critical time of war, and we have failed miserably with our choice.
Fellow Dems, vote for Bush, or don’t vote at all. Don’t disgrace the Democratic party by endorsing a fraud like Kerry. Our ideology must be set aside to protect our national safety and our very families. Think. Please.
thegooch_@excite.com
thegooch:
on the other hand, the sin of competing quotes is arguably pretty small change compared to the large mind-boggling mess that is the reality on the ground in Iraq today, much less all the inexcusable errors in action and judgment that have led us to this sorry state of affairs.
also, I’m of that school that sez I’d rather have a president with a flexible brain than one who stands by their position day in day out, even when the world proves them wrong.
so that all leaves me as one Democrat who’s for Kerry.
My response to reader Gooch, comnmenting on Vietnam not irrelevant to today (although his post is, not suprisingly, entirely off topic for that entry):
I think you have “indisputable facts” mixed up with assertions, opinions, conjecture, and wild-ass exaggerations.
Your so-called FACTS:
1) I am a Democrat.
If you say so. To prove it to me you’d have to show me your party registration, and even then I wouldn’t put it past you to register as a Democrat to give your pro-Bush propaganda more heft.
2) Saddam Hussein sponsors global terrorism.
Define global. Bush stretched 9/11 to cover all countries that harbored terrorist organizations of global reach. Please site one such group that was harbored by Iraq. Thank you.
3) George Bush removed Saddam with extreme prejudice after an attack on our soil by an Islamic terrorist group.
Putting aside the macho lingo, what is the connection between Saddam, our soil, Islamic extermism, and terror?
3) John Kerry, “our” candidate, can’t make up his mind, and most recently has condemned Bush for protecting our country by attacking terrorism at its roots
No, he has condemned Bush for endangering our country by falling asleep at the wheel in Afghanistan and instead pursuing a politicized foreign policy designed to win seats in Congress and intimidate opposition by branding them as terrorist sympathizers.
Where were the roots of terrorism in Iraq?
And have you seen the CIA map that’s been going around lately showing the countries Al Qaeda was operating in in 2001?
(That “our” gives you away, btw.)
THOSE ARE INDISPUTABLE FACTS.
Writing in all caps doesn’t make you right, fella.
Of the two, I trust Bush to fight terrorism and protect my family.
That’s your call, of course.
Dispute this, if you will:
I was for Dean and that was a slam at Dean to win a very tough primary. I am not a child and understand how politics work. Your move.
I agree with the above.
Kerry supported giving the president the ability to threaten credible use of force in order to push the UN and our allies into supporting a tougher inspection regime that would ensure that Saddam could not develop the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction to our soil (and not merely his “hope” or his weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.
What the hell is this man thinking, and how on earth did we choose him as our candidate? Surely we could have done better.
If you trust Bush why are you concerned that the Democrats didn’t field someone you’d like better? Where’s the problem?
These facts are indefensible, no matter your affiliation. Kerry is a pathetic choice for a candidate in this critical time of war, and we have failed miserably with our choice.
What do you mean “we” Kimosabe?
Fellow Dems, vote for Bush, or don’t vote at all. Don’t disgrace the Democratic party by endorsing a fraud like Kerry. Our ideology must be set aside to protect our national safety and our very families. Think. Please.
Fellow Republicans and Zellocrats, vote for Kerry or don’t vote at all. Don’t disgrace conservative values by supporting a fraud like Bush. Think “peas.”
Cecil’s response is in the comment thread, as is my original version of my own reply.