"understand the nature of the enemy".

Oh yeah....They got that nailed.
They will great us as liberators.
They are in their , if you will, "last throes".

How do you say things like that with a straight face?

Pretty soon, bruceeeeey, juanD, pillow, et al, will have to denounce all Republican heroes such as Mister Domenici for asking for a withdrawal from illegally occupied Iraq. Then they will be supporting only shotgun dickie and his boot licker chimpy mcflightsuit. Same definition - chimpy mcflightsuit, caught between Iraq and a hard place. Worst president ever. Never thought I'd miss Nixon.

Please. Domenici is saying he's maybe, kinda, sorta, thinking about a possibility of a figment of something...

He's not actually calling for a withdrawal. He's not even sending a warning shot over Bush's bow... more like tossing a frisbee in the general direction of the White House.

Read the details -- Domenici is signing onto the Salazar plan which is little more than a piece of paper with nearly empty rhetoric.

It appears that Domenici can count as well as Lugar. All those politicos that have to answer to voters in 2008 will be bailing out over the next few months. It is obvious to all that can count, that we are headed for 5,000 dead Americans before election day 2008. If we do not have troops started home by early next year, Republicans will become scarce in Congress.

Those neocons and wing nuts that swamp the Swamp must be going crazy.
A looney lefter

Just like Vietnam, one by one all the administration apologist are bailing out. Pretty soon no one in the Republican party will admit to ever having supported this war.

And back here at The Swamp, Bruce will whine that Tribune reporters aren't covering a more positive development in Iraq, like the half billion dollar embassy that....oops bad example.

And John D. will claim that Domenici was a "loon" all along.

Paulo will declare that "Clinton was behind it".

J.W. will recite the national anthem.

Then the adults will take over the discussion. God, I love this blog.

Oh No! The deadenders have lost Pajamas Domenici! What's that...he up for re-election in 2008!?!?

I'm sure 'Pajamas' will be the very last Repug. to el foldo on Iraq this summer! HA! (Snark alert for the disabled...John D.)

Well well well,another Chickenhawk declares for cut and run.What happened to that noble cause of fighting them over there,so we don't have to beat em back in the mornings as we get our Starbucks.It certainly looking like the Emperor has no clothes.We already knew he had no brains.

"t is not Democrats who have failed the American people, Domenici suggested, but the Iraqi government." What a twisted suggestion!! Bush and his Republicans failed the American people, not the Democrats nor the Iraqi government.

The Iraqi government with its various self-serving factions has demonstrated time and again that all they care about are their own sectarian goals.

So, call it what you will:

Cut & run.
Cut & walk.
Chaff & shuffle.

Whatever you want to call it, it's long time past due for us to get out of the Iraqi multi-faceted civil war referee business.

When Oil Barons Bush and Cheney said "mission accomplished" they were right. The mission was to destabilize the region so the price of oil would skyrocket, enriching them and their robber baron friends and family. Gasoline was a dollar a gallon here in Springfield when Bush took office, it's three bucks now. Bush and Cheney and their oil friends are rolling in the dough. It's disgusting that this scum would sell out their country and the lives of thousands of brave soldiers for filthy lucre. I never thought I'd see a worse President than Carter, but then I never thought I'd see one sell our country out like that.

9 out of the current 10 Repubs running for president support the War in Iraq and politics as usual.

The lone dissenter?...Ron Paul. The only man with enough cajones to stand up for what's right.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

that's really good policy cutt and run...If you blog or have a webpage check out http://www.widgetmate.com

The full quote from Sen. Domenici is:

"I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home."

Well, who doesn't support such a "new strategy"?

This statement is vague enough to mean anything--and nothing. Perfect politician-speak.

All it takes is a looming election putting the supporters of this mess ( Iraq) at risk and they now will say we never should have gone over there in the first place. Mitch O'Connell will be next.
Geo.'s legacy will be
"Bring it on".......duh...

So Domenici wants to set a date for withdrawel for March of 2008. Which Democratic Presidential candidate used the same date in his proposal and was ridiculed?? Hmmmm...was it that guy with the Muslim sounding name? Paulo can you help me out?

It is time to recognize the errors of our ways and adopt the Dr. Ron Paul position of non-interventionism, trade, and honest friendships. We can only expect peace for our country when we act peacefully ourselves.

Maybe the repubs-hawks can remain in what's left of the GOP, which might be better thought of as the "stay and die" party.

Works for me...

Among the Republican presidential candidates, there is a chance that McCain will be still supporting the war in Iraq past Labor Day. He will be the only one.
Romney will be the first to cave, followed by Giuliani. A real batch of paper tigers.

If the Iraqi people don't stand up soon, I say divide the place up like a pie. Three slices three independent governments and get the #*%k out of Iraq. We've been there long enough and the time to let the Iraqi government know it is now!!! We should have never taken up two wars. I think that I even miss Al Gore!!

As a Canadian citizen I can't help but wonder how a country such as the states can invade a country (killing MANY in the process), create absolute chaos for residents in the affected area and leave without resolving the chaos - how can they morally justify the turmoil they've caused without making amends in Iraq (ie. an early withdrawl)?

Wasn't the original objective the capture of Osama Bin Laden? This is Baby Bush's legacy, the Viet Nam of the 21st Century

Steve the Canadian,

Unfortunately there is no such thing as a go back in time machine.

That said, peace in Iraq will be found only when it is preceded by a political solution. Unfortunately the Iraqi government with its various sectarian and tribal faction have made it abundently clear they are unwilling to forge a political compromise.

Would you have advocated the US staying in Vietnam indefinately?

GWB said, "The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run."

What a moron!!

First of all, FDR was considered to be a "communist" by many republicans of the time. (But if he would like that I'm all for it.) If someone like GW had been in charge, we wouldn't have the economic safe guards we have today, such as the SEC, NASD and FDIC. And the rich would exploit the poor even more than Bush, Cheyney and their chronies do now.

Secondly, is Mr. Bush seriously trying to compare WWII to Iraq? Give me a break. We only got involved in WWII after a direct attack, actually carried out by one of fascist powers aligned with Hitler and Mussolini.

The 9/11/01 attacks were by a rogue nation not allied with any government. In fact, Hussein specifically made sure Al Quaeda stayed out of Iraq. But then, good old GW had to hand them the keys by starting his immoral war and, wallah, "Al Quaeda in Iraq". Had Bush concentrated on the "right" war in the first place, which was tracking down Osama Bin Laden (anybody remember him?) and the rest of Al Quaeda, instead of his illegal attack against a sovereign nation that had not harmed us (nor were they planing)
we would truly be safer and better off.

Both the Demopublicans and the Repubocrats have failed the Americans and the Iraqis. The Demopublicans have endorsed the war as much the Repubocrats.

Unfortunately, America doing to its people and the world as the British were doing in 1770s.

Wake up and smell the gunpowder.

Also, I disagreed with Truman's decision to use the nuclear bomb on Japan. While the military leaders were split on the issue, many of them felt that with the war over in Europe, Japan would have been "relatively" peacfully brought to surrender by surrounding them with the U.S. Navy from the east and the Soviet army from the west. There was no need to obliderate 250,000 civillians.

Nice try on the new face saving rationalization for leaving Iraq: "the Iraqi government was unwilling to forge a political compromise" - we tried, it's all their fault!!!

Any old neural ganglia in a petri dish could have seen in 2002 that every event from the colonial era up to now conspires against the formation of a free and democratic federalized government in Iraq. Silly me, I even hoped Bush and his brain (Cheney) knew something I didn't, and might make it work. But no, it was a doomed enterprise (in terms of freeing Iraqis and re-building the Middle East, not in terms of oil revenue) from the first inklings in Cheney's fevered fascist mind 20 years ago.

When we eventually leave, and the inevitable civil war finally winds down (after possibly spreading into Iran and Saudi Peninsula), history will long laugh at what we say here.

Soon enough, Bush, Cheney and Lieberman will be the only Republicans still opposing withdrawal.

Gas the Kurds and restore the rape rooms in Iraq NOW!

It's the only way America will be safe again

well, well, its time call them as we see them, cowboys back home can't waite to shot the indians. Bush is right no time for a truce, we must win this over there, and now...

Hello dt:

I was just wondering why you brought up Vietnam? There are no similarities between the two situations.

If you recall correctly, we didn’t leave Vietnam as a result of military loss. We won every major battle of that war. We left after we got the North Vietnamese Government to sign off on a peace agreement. Do you remember the Paris peace talks? Recall, also, that we coerced the North Vietnamese into signing that agreement by bombing the snot out of them. In other words, we dictated our own terms of withdrawal from a position of strength.

It seems to me that most people would be very happy if we could get out of Iraq on terms as favorable as we had in Vietnam.

[quote]
The full quote from Sen. Domenici is:

"I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home."

Posted by: Bruce | July 6, 2007 9:11 AM
[/quote]

Gee, Bruce, that's EXACTLY the same strategy millions of Democrats and American citizens have been saying for months, and those on the right like yourself have been questioning our "patriotism" in response. You can't have it both ways - so now you'll call Domenici a traitor too?

"I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home."

Well, who doesn't support such a "new strategy"?

Posted by: Bruce | July 6, 2007 9:11 AM

Well, let's see, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Senator John McCain, Rudy Guliani....

This is great. I rather fight the enemy here in the USA. Why die in another country fightig or freedom?

JJ

I say we stay ...forever if necessary. Freedom's on the march and the cost of freedom is never cheap...we're looking for a few good men and join the navy and see the world...remember the alamo? ...they'll follow us here if we don't stop them there...and better dead than red...Uncle Sam needs you...follow the boys...even if the war be wrong we are in it and we cannot retire without dishonor...this is the white man's burden...proclaim liberty throughout the land...let freedom ring ...victory and/or death

I say we stay ...forever if necessary. Freedom's on the march and the cost of freedom is never cheap...we're looking for a few good men and join the navy and see the world...remember the alamo? ...they'll follow us here if we don't stop them there...and better dead than red...Uncle Sam needs you...follow the boys...even if the war be wrong we are in it and we cannot retire without dishonor...this is the white man's burden...proclaim liberty throughout the land...let freedom ring ...victory and/or death

Steve,
How can the states do that to Iraq? The answer is:For oil.There are no political friendships- just oil interest.should Canada and Mexico beware!!!! Well may benext time another gang of robber barrons are voted in.
Also, "Iraqui government" is a cruel joke on the dead Coalition soldiers' families and the countless dead Iraqui casualties.
Which govt, what govt?

John W.,

You are re-writing history. I'll reduce it to a news reference mental image:

South Vietnamese people grabbing for the skids on that last helicopter leaving the US embassy in Saigon.

In other words, we dictated our own terms of withdrawal (from Vietnam) from a position of strength.

Posted by: John W. | July 6, 2007 11:45 AM

John W... you are delusional.

"defeat Al-Qaeda in Irag..." What irks me greatly about the Irag situation is there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the war. But that was a reason for going to war. And now what we are at war, al-Qaeda is in Iraq. If Bush had any concept of what a comprises a true leader, he would admit his mistakes to the same American people that he asks to sacrifice so much. We may have to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq but his policies are why they are there in the first place.

This is just a result of the voters not using their brains in 2000 and 2004.
incompetence, incompetence and more incompetence.

The bottom line is that Domenici and his ilk, Republian and Democrat, aren't in a hurry to stop the massacre of our troops in Iraq. In Vietnam, we were sent on 'patrols' so the enemy could find us so we could find them. It always cost us casualties and lives. The lawmakers then and now see troops as numbers, no matter how many flag lapel pins they wear, memorial services they attend. They, in collaboration with a very sick sadist and mass murderer, George W. Bush, are comfortable with our young people getting disabled and killed in order to protect their chances for re-election. This is cowardice at the highest level, and arrogance beyond belief.

Hey John W....What up? BTW the JW I was referring to above was Jerry White, the man who thinks dissent of any kind is traitorous.

Re: Vietnam. I brought it up because at the beginning of Johnson's term there were many hawks, Democratic and Republican, who supported our policies there. They bought the "domino theory" of communism like supporters of this war buy "the whole Middle East will explode if we leave" theory.

People in the Johnson Administration believed that an "escalation" of hostilities would turn the tide in Vietnam. Supporters of this war believe the "surge" will turn things around.
When it became clear that we were losing the war in Vietnam, hawks from both parties were bailing, protests were mounting (I was one) Johnson announced he wouldn't seek re-election. Support for the war was dwindling. I see some similarities there, you may not.

As for the "Peace with Honor" thing that came later.I seem to remember huge "collateral damage" (loss of civilian life) from the carpet bombing of Hanoi, or as you put it, "bombing the snot out of them". But hey, at least we cut and walked from Vietnam from a "position of strength" (except that the rest of the world condemned us).

Reminds me of the scene from "A Fish Called Wanda":

Otto:"We did not lose Vietnam. It was a tie"

Archie: "I'm tellin' ya baby they kicked your little ass there. Boy, they wooped your hide real good."

Otto: "No they didn't."

Archie: "Oh yes they did."

Otto: "Oh, no they didn't"

Archie: "Oh yes they did."

Otto: "Oh, no they...Shut up!"

john W is a real schmuck...

i agree that there is scarcely any comparison between vietnam and iraq...

first of all, as opposed to this war as i was, and am, i have no love for saddam and wouldn't be upset in the least if we decided to assasinate a fascist piece of sh*t like him...

but wow! comparing that to vietnam? one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever perpetrated??

the proto-neoCons in this country murdered millions of south east asians and murdered close to 100,000 american soldiers...

deal with reality... the vietminh fought against the imperial japanese during wwii, and after wwi was over, somehow, by some miracle the "can't let paris burn, can't let paris burn" french were allowed to recolonize vietnam because they weren't signatories to the atlantic charter, as they were busy being vichy...

when the french recolonized, they put the japanese collaborators back in power... tried to put the sycophantic french boot licking catholics in power in a buddist country...

they got there asses handed to them thank god... we backed them, and then -- holy cow!-- took up their struggle to impose slavery on the vietnamese ppl!!

thank god we got our asses kicked too...

john W. u are too dumb for words... favorable terms?? lol... we bombed the hell out of them to punish and torture on our way out... to make their victory as pyrric as we could...

dumb ass... the british got favorable terms from us after yorktown- - doesn't change the fact that they lost...

u talk about the carpet bombing of indo china as if that were a good thing

god damn u and your whole progeny

Here's a thought. The line about how it's the Iraqi government's fault that we have to leave, not the Democrats, is a very good idea. Why don't both the Democrats and the Republicans start blaming the Iraqis for this mess? We might be able to tone down the political rhetoric and actually come up with some useful solutions if we can unite in blaming a third party.

John W., you are exactly right. From the very beginning of the Vietnam War, we were striving to make sure Vietnam was peacefully united under a Communist government, and so our withdrawal was actually a complete victory. Steve34, you also have an excellent point. Not a single US soldier would have died in the invasion of Japan, and the Soviet occupation of Japan would have been at least as beneficial for the Japanese as Stalin's treatment of his own people. I love revising history!

my 2¢ on the atomic bombing of japan...

as per the spirit, if not the letter of the geneva accords, given the full understanding of the effects of radioactive fallout... i am opposed to its use...

the reason it was used has nothing to do with saving american servicemen's lives...

it was an expedient to demonstrate the bomb to the soviets who were (opportunistically) smashing thru japanese lines at that stage of the war...

kind of interesting how the japanese ultimately held the key to wwii and blew it and destroyed themselves...

they were so afraid of the red army after the beating zhukov handed them in manchuria in the 30's that they were gunshy to contront them in wwii...

had the japanese attacked the ussr in winter '41 instead of the usa... history might be very different...

the siberian armies that reinforced/saved the moscow front came after stalin's intelliegence told him the japanese had no intention of invading ussr...

it is a fairly safe bet that the ussr would have fallen if the japanese invaded from the east... germany would have had unfettered acces to the baku oilfields and who knows what would have happened...

Steve34, you also have an excellent point. Not a single US soldier would have died in the invasion of Japan, and the Soviet occupation of Japan would have been at least as beneficial for the Japanese as Stalin's treatment of his own people. I love revising history!

Posted by: John B. | July 6, 2007 4:16 PM

John B... While I do agree that John W. and Steve34 have a very tenuous grasp on history, I think that dropping the A-bombs on heavily populated areas in Japan was a mistake.

I think the US could have gotten the same point across by dropping the bombs on Japan in sparsely populated areas (or even non-populated areas) of the country.. Maybe even on a military base instead of a civilian city...

The US did warn the Japanese that we had a weapon of unparralleled destructive capability. I just think the Japanese didn't believe or understand the magnitude. We could have shown it to them, on their own soil, without killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

If they didn't respond to a couple drops on non-populated areas... well then Nagasaki or Hiroshima would have been understandable next targets.

I know we were trying to beat the timeline of terms of an agreement with Russia not to get involved in Japan, but it would have only taken an extra week or two to give the Japanese a peek at our nukes and an opportunity to surrender without the massive killing of civilians.

I guess the only question here is, will Domenici still feel this way when we get to September?

The Republican establishment pushed off the last Iraq funding fight by saying they needed until September before we can tell if "the surge is working", and it would be premature to ask for a new approach to Iraq before that time comes.

When that time does come, will we just be given some other reason why delay is necessary?

And will Domenici continue into September to feel, as he says he does today, that further commitment in Iraq with no progress is unreasonable? Or when the party calls will he embrace further delays as well?

lololol, john w. What a toolbox.

But honestly, did you other commenter people ever consider that John W. might be some kind of post-ironic avant garde performance artist? That he knows exactly what he's doing (namely, taking the truth and turning it exactly 180 degrees through some 4th dimensional mirror) and he's just saying these ridiculous things about Vietnam, et al., as a sort of social experiment? Or just for kicks? I think we MIGHT just have a genius on our hands. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

Doug Zook:

You weren't paying attention very well if you think the images of Vietnamese women hanging on to helicopter skids was representative of how our military left the country.

With the exception of a few advisors and embassy guards, American Troops had left Vietnam by March 29, 1973 – in accordance with the cease-fire agreement we had with the government of North Vietnam. A subsequent peace agreement was reached on June 13, 1973. By the end of the year, the number of U.S. military personnel was down to 50 people.

Nixon had promised the South Vietnamese government we would re-deploy if the North Vietnamese violated the cease-fire and peace agreements and invaded. In the meantime, however, the Watergate scandal unraveled and Nixon was forced to leave. At the same time, Congress, now led by a Democratic majority, passed the Case-Church Amendment which forbade any further U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia as of August 15, 1973. Subsequent congressional votes ended all American bombing activity in Southeast Asia. As a consequence, all further U.S. Air Force operations in the Cambodia-Laos-Vietnam theater of operations came to an end.

On August 9, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned as President because of impending impeachment proceedings arising from the Watergate debacle. Gerald Ford was sworn in as President.

In 1974, the North Vietnamese began a series of attacks against South Vietnamese Army positions. President Ford responds with a series of diplomatic protests, as he couldn’t take any military action as a result of the Case-Church Amendment and subsequent congressional action. As a result of the U.S. having been de-clawed, the North Vietnamese government invaded South Vietnam in early 1975. We, of course, had no further response to make.

The evacuation scenes from the American Embassy and the Pittman Apartments – helicopters and all – occurred in April of 1975 after the North Vietnamese invaded in violation of the cease-fire and peace agreements, and after they defeated the ARVN and captured Saigon. All of this happened two years after American troops had already departed. The evacuees in the scenes to which you were treated consisted almost entirely of civilians and Vietnamese military personnel, and not American military running for their lives.

Do not blame me if you were asleep or inattentive to what was going on at the time. If you don’t believe me, go look it up. The facts are out there. If others have been telling a different story, those are the historical revisionists – and not me.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts.

John W... you are delusional.

Posted by: david k | July 6, 2007 12:35 PM

No david. You are incredibly ignorant again - as is your usual M.O.

John W,

Hey John, guys like you who claim to be "real conservatives" and not Neocons need to come clean that you voted for Bush/Cheney in 2000 and 2004; quit trying to find ways to blame this Neocon self-made civil war in Iraq on the Dems and step up to the plate and take your anger out on YOUR GUYS (all of them), otherwise you are still one of them i.e part of the problem.

I'm sure you've seen the idiotic posts on here from the goofball group that includes Lil' Johnny D.isturbed, Bruce and that crazy Jerry White guy from Springfield, right?

Those guys claim to be on you're team, are you on theirs?

I think you have more on the ball than they do.

Peace!

dt:

It was never clear that we were losing the war. Call it nitpicking if you like, but we never lost a single battle of any consequence. Even those who called the war "un-winnable" after the '68 TET offensive, failed to appreciate the TET offensive was a dismal failure for the NVA and VC. They got whupped for that stunt.

It wasn't as much the perception that we were losing that got Johnson to leave the presidency, as much the perception that we weren't getting anywhere - we weren't affirmatively winning, and we were losing too much in lives and treasure to consider it worthwhile to continue indefinitely. There are some people in Congress today, as well as out here in blog-land, who can’t tell the difference between not-winning and losing.

I’ll make it simple. Losing means being defeated. Losing a war means being defeated militarily. If you haven’t yet defeated your opponents or have played them to a tie, you haven’t won – but you haven’t lost either. In war, as in sports, you win when you impose you will on your opponent and/or obtain more of your objectives than your opponents. I’m glad I could help all you Blackhawks fans out there.

John B:

Stop being a smart-ass lap-dog. I never commented on why we were in Vietnam, and I never once said that our presence there was either wise or moral. Learn to read content for what it says, and not for what you want it to say.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts.

Posted by: John W. | July 6, 2007 6:35 PM

Whic applies to you as well John W.

One of the key provisions of the 1973 Peace Accords was that the North Vietnamese were not required to remove their troops from the positions they held in South Vietnam as of the signing. We agreed tyo withdraw, they did not.

So to say that North Vietnam "invaded" South Vietnam in 1975 is incorrect. They resumed hostilities at that time. The invasion had never stopped.

Do tell, John W. how, from a "position of strength" we managed to negotiate a Peace agreement where the enemy got to keep all of their gains, and to keep their military forces within the boundries of our ally, while we withdrew completely?

The fact is that everyone knew that the Paris Peace accords were temporary, and that as soon as we were safely out of the way, North Vietnam would continue their conquest.

"Living In The Past"
Jethro Tull

Happy and I'm smiling,
walk a mile to drink your water.
You know I'd love to love you,
and above you there's no other.
We'll go walking out
while others shout of war's disaster.
Oh, we won't give in,
let's go living in the past.

Once I used to join in
every boy and girl was my friend.
Now there's revolution, but they don't know
what they're fighting.
Let us close our eyes;
outside their lives go on much faster.
Oh, we won't give in,
we'll keep living in the past.

seth:

You belong as an exhibit to demonstrate how the American school system is a complete failure. You can’t spell, you know nothing of grammar or syntax, and you can’t comprehend simple English. Sue your schools, Seth; they failed you.

I never said the Vietnam war was good or moral. Nor did I ever say that the bombing of North Vietnam that coerced the North Vietnamese government to agree to a cease-fire and peace agreement was good, wise or moral. You merely assumed that I believed such things because I described what we did as negotiating “from a position of strength.”

Wars are never good. They are always ugly. As Nathan Bedford Forrest once said (and I know the reference is lost on you), “Wars mean fightin’ and fightin’ means killin.” We were in a war, and we did what we could to bring it to an end – and we did for a time. Hate it as much as you want, but I was only stating the facts.

You are ignorant of history too. You are right in saying millions of innocent civilians were killed in that war. You are ignorant to suggest, however, that we were the only ones killing civilians. The NVA and VC killed a lot of civilians, and they even killed another 100,000 South Vietnamese civilians after we left. The communist forces under Pol Pot also proceeded to kill between 1.5 to 3.3 million people next door in Cambodia. Nor, as you suggest, did we loose 100,000 American soldiers. We lost about 58,000 people from 1954 until we left in 1973.

And it wasn’t “proto-neoCons” that got us into that war or made it last so long. Up until August of 1962, the United States had no more than about 1,140 military personnel in South Vietnam, most of whom were advisors. In August of that year, John F. Kennedy – a Democrat – sent another 16,000 troops to Vietnam. Then, in August of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson – yet another Democrat – got Congress to authorize him “to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.” (Does that sound familiar?) After that, the United States military escalated the war and Vietnam became a true shooting war. Furthermore, it was Richard M. Nixon – a Republican – who started the process of de-escalation, and who finally got us out of that mess.

And we didn’t get our asses kicked. As I said before, we won every battle of any consequence while we were in Vietnam. Hate that as much as you like, but it is the truth.

You know, Seth, I’m a little surprised the Swamp censors actually posted your vulgar, foul mouthed rant. I almost didn’t respond to your post because I consider you so ignorant and silly that you are a waste of gravity. But your ignorance seems infectious – and so I considered it worthwhile to bring that to an end.

Tony:

You are correct in saying that the North Vietnamese still had troops in South Vietnam, and that they weren't required to move them. They were, however, required to refrain from re-starting hostilities with them. They weren’t required to move them because there was also supposed to be some political solution in the works after the cease-fire. That, of course, never occurred.

And the NVA did “invade.” When the North Vietnamese re-started hostilities in 1975, they moved further into South Vietnam with the goal of conquest, and they used more troops than they already had in South Vietnam. The sent a lot of troops from North Vietnam south into territories held by the ARVN. So, yes, to the extent they sent more troops into territory they didn’t hold before, their operations constituted an invasion.

You question whether there were any teeth to the agreement. There were teeth in the agreement, but not for long. We had promised to re-deploy if the North Vietnamese invaded. We also still had Air Force units in Southeast Asia after the cease-fire, and we were still committed to giving air and bombing support to the ARVN after we removed our ground forces. That was our “position of strength” to keep the peace.

It was only after Congress shut down the possibility of re-deployment and ended Air Force operations in Southeast Asia that the cease-fire became a joke. It was only then that the North Vietnamese began to test the waters by resuming hostilities. It was only after we didn’t do anything – other than protest through diplomatic channels – that the North Vietnamese knew they had a license to invade and conquer. They did that two years after our ground troops left.

Thanks, but I got my facts straight.

John E:

I know its getting hot outside, but you gotta be careful not to drink the Kool-aid if you don't know what someone else put in it. I'm just kidding of course.

Seriously, though, I never blamed the Democrats for the War in Iraq. The Democrats were obviously not the impetus for the war. Duh'bya and his cronies were; and that's a no-brainer. The worst that could be said is that a lot of Democrats made themselves accomplices by voting to authorize the war. Let's face it. There were a lot of known reasons as to why we shouldn't have gone there, regardless of all the dangers, real or imagined, that would supposedly occur if we didn't go. The vote to authorize the war was not unanimous, and both major parties had their dissenters. So, it isn't as though everyone on both sides got hoodwinked by the sales/snow job from the Bushies. It was just a foolish mess.

kb,

Thanks for the Tull, most apropos.

John W.,

With all due respect buddy, the distinction between "losing militarily" as opposed to "Peace with honor" is lost on me. Yeah, we didn't use all our options to guarantee a "military victory".

Hell, we could have bombed the levees in Hanoi and drowned half the population. Does that mean we would have won? If the people here at home can't live with the result, if we can't claim any moral justification (if we could to begin with), if the world considers us a piranha, what have we won?

It was clear in 68' that we would never win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese, so in that sense we had already lost. News of the My Lai Massacre and other atrocities further diminished support for the war at home. Kent State and other events during Nixon's term sealed the deal.

A military victory in Vietnam, even if it could have been achieved, would have rung hollow to a nation who's fabric had been torn apart by a needless, immoral, and costly war.

Now we've got people saying that "the only way we can lose in Iraq is if we leave", a favorite neocon line.

I liken it to this. Bush used 9/11 to consolidate his power and diminish our civil liberties.

In the process he divided the country, lost respect in the world, unnecessarily caused the death of hundreds of thousands of "non-combatants", weakened our military to the breaking point, cost our country dearly in lives and money spent. If this is what victory looks like, I want no part of it.

"If you recall correctly, we didn’t leave Vietnam as a result of military loss. We won every major battle of that war. We left after we got the North Vietnamese Government to sign off on a peace agreement. Do you remember the Paris peace talks? Recall, also, that we coerced the North Vietnamese into signing that agreement by bombing the snot out of them. In other words, we dictated our own terms of withdrawal from a position of strength."

Hey, I believe in revisionist history, because not all facts and understandings about past events are known when the first versions are written, and most of those versions are tainted by propaganda, conventional wisdom, and various hidden agendas. Yes, I believe in revising history when it gives a better picture of the truth, but unlike the person quoted above, I do not believe in the Tooth Fairy.

Anyone who says we're failing in Iraq because of the inadequacies of the Iraqis (which would include most of the Democrats who voted for the war authorization) apparently hasn't figured out what an insane gamble it was to invade Iraq in the first place, even without knowing what we know now.

Now that we've destroyed their country, we're going to blame Iraqis for the chaos we brought to them? Will that be our reason for abandoning them now?

Interested:

Please lose the "revisionist history" nonsense unless you are willing to point out just how I revised history. I am dealing with facts while your are dealing with labels. Please prove that you have more than two contiguous brain cells by giving examples of my "revisions" when you make such claims.

The rest of your post is entirely worthless. I wasn't even talking about the Iraq war directly. I merely took exception to the use of "Vietnam" as an analogous situation to what is happening in Iraq, and as a general talisman for doom and failure for military operations. How is it that you missed that?

You will never get me to disagree with you that the Iraq war was an extremely foolish endeavor from the git-go. I have said so all along. Whatever the final result in that part of the world may be, we will rightfully be charged with the blame. But, where you got the idea that I thought otherwise is a mystery - other than you own neglect in reading.

John W. I think I can smell your keyboard smoking from your attempt to spin your way out of your moronic original comment.

Just like your neocon heroes, instead of just admit to a simple original mistake, you keep digging your hole deeper in an ignorant attempt to re-describe your original intent from 15 different angles.... with flawed reasoning and predictable results...

The bottom line is that (no matter how many times you attempt to spin away from it or trash others for pointing out what is painfully obvious) this still stands as the simplest, most accurate description of your original statement:

In other words, we dictated our own terms of withdrawal (from Vietnam) from a position of strength.

Posted by: John W. | July 6, 2007 11:45 AM

John W... you are delusional.

Posted by: david k | July 6, 2007 12:35 PM

david k:

It is a fact that the North Vietnamese were not interested in negotiating with us.

It is a fact that President Nixon turned up the heat by escalating bombing in North Vietnam.

It is a fact that, as a direct result of bombing North Vietnam, the North Vietnamese Government agreed to peace terms with us.

Where are my factual mistakes david? There aren't any. Then how can you say that we didn't exit Vietnam or dictate our own terms of withdrawal? You cannot. The peace agreement WAS the embodiment of our withdrawal terms. Was that a position of strength? Yes, it was. It was a position of strength because we had demonstrated to the North Vietnamese that we could inflict debilitating damage on their population and infrastructure. Did they respect that? Well, they signed on the line, didn't they?

I stand by my original statement, david.

Try doing something original for yourself. That is, try using your brain and your knowledge of world history (if you have any) to make an argument. Your label machine has been working overtime and, as usual, you haven't a clue.

John W., you seem like rational and intelligent guy. I don't always agree with your points of view (sometimes I do), but whether I agree or not you present your arguments rationally and with support.
But I see you keep trying to reason with the members of the Loony Left. God bless you for trying, but it will get you nowhere. It's like trying to reason with a rabid raccoon.

dt:

With all due respect – there is a world of difference between “peace with honor” and losing militarily. An army loses militarily when its opponents have exerted enough organized violence to impose their will on it and render it useless. “Peace with honor” meant creating a peaceful environment through strength and diplomatic means, and leaving off military action at the point where it no longer has any realistic prospect of altering the political landscape for the better.

Could we have won in Vietnam had we continued much longer? Some of the North Vietnamese have said so, but what's the use of thinking about it now?

Was it desirable that we continue there? No. We created the South Vietnam by interfering with its elections. On any given day, the entire time we were there, Ho Chi Minh and his party would likely have won by a landslide in any election held in both North and South Vietnam. That’s how unpopular we were. The knowledge that a communist would win the election scheduled for 1956 is precisely why we intervened there in the first place. We were only there to halt communism; not to spread popular government.

This is where, in my mind, there is a vast difference between Vietnam and Iraq. In Vietnam, we put dictators in power. In Iraq, we got rid of one. South Vietnam held no elections because of our intervention. In Iraq there have already been three different elections because we intervened. In Vietnam, we stopped all efforts at unifying the country under a single leadership. Iraq now has an indigenous, representative government. The Vietnamese people never had a chance at freedom as long as we called the shots. The Iraqi people actually have a chance at living in something resembling a free country if they can restore order – with or without help from us or someone else.

None of this makes the decision to go to war in Iraq any more moral or wiser than going to war in Vietnam. Going to war was a mistake on both occasions. However, the difference between the two means there actually might be something worth fighting for in Iraq that can be lost, and that never did exist in Vietnam. If we are to be responsible for the loss of life and freedom of the remaining Iraqis, we have a moral obligation to protect them and keep the damage from happening – whether or not we do it by remaining in the country. It’s just like what happens when someone gets into a car accident in which someone else is injured. The law imposes a duty to render first aid.

I agree with you that the neo-cons are wrong when they say, “the only way we can lose in Iraq is if we leave." We will lose, regardless of whether we leave or stay, if we give up and allow all those people to die, and with them their freedom (however awful it may be right now). Victory can only come with peace. I could look at that and take part in it.

I was in Nam. I lost a huge amount of friends in Nam. To say "any" aspect of the Vietnam war was a success.....sickens me.

To wish we had won the Vietnam war isn't the same as actually having won it. To imagine we can make Iraq adopt any kind of effective democracy through force of arms is the magical thinking of a toddler. Seems like there's a whole lotta wishin goin on these days...

We should probably set ideology aside and try to figure out what's really going on, which won't be easy. Nobody really knows the actual facts of Iraq and its tribal loyalties, religious and political infighting, and the activities of its militias. Face it: we still don't know what we're doing. But we'd better figure it out soon, not based on what we wish to be true, but from the standpoint of responsible and clear-headed pragmatism.

Domenici must go. I hope NM vote him out. I hope he gets busted in the Attorney General firing scandal

I stand by my original statement, david.

Posted by: John W. | July 7, 2007 8:54 AM

Well then I stand by my original statement, John W. You are delusional.

You're like the Frenchman who honesly believed, to his core, that his country fought valiantly against fascism in WWII (there were many Frenchman who believed that to their dying day because the alternative, albeit factual, reality was impossible to live with).

Anyone who calls the "position of strength" meaning that we withdraw from the country of dispute with our tails through our legs and the enemy gets to hold their gains and fly their flag over the entire country of dispute once we've left is... well... delusional.

Your "reasoning" takes an enormous leap of faulty logic and whole lot of flag-waving reality suppression. Mine (that you're delusional about our exit of Vietnam) is plainly obvious just as the sky is blue.

Iraq was, is and will be a mess.

Smell the coffee, folks: Bush's plan for Iraq is simple: Keep the war going until the Democrats force an end.

Then, the Republican history books will read that we would have won Iraq, "if only the Democrats hadn't made us lose."

That's Bush's plan for the war, no more, no less.

John W,

Congratulations, you succeeded in getting half a rational response from John D. before he reverted to his sophomoric ways.

Call me defeatist here, but I don't see any way our continued presence in Iraq can improve the situation. It appears that now we are part of the problem.

The way I see it, we blew the chance to win the hearts and minds of Iraqi's when Rumsfeld's flawed plan failed to win the peace.

Throw out the arguments for going to war, we still blew the prosecution of Iraq II. Even if we brought back the draft and committed hundreds of thousands of more troops, I don't think we could achieve a suitable outcome. By that, I mean a liberal-style democracy (like that was a realistic expectation to begin with). A Shia theocracy is likely to emerge whether we leave or stay indefinitely. I've always subscribed to the pottery barn logic, but I think its too late, It's clear we're over our heads. I think Dubya and the neo-know nothings thought this would be another Grenada.

Pete Seeger's music was probably before your time (Vietnam too?) but it still begs the question, "When will they ever learn"?

This is not about what's right for the US, Iraq or the world. This is about Bush being crazy enough to think he can control when Jesus returns. The rest of it is just lying politicians trying to hang on to votes.

Let's do our own surge; let's get more Democrats into the House and Senate so we can override veto's. Let's also get a progressive, intelligent, thoughtful president into the white house. We have a lot to choose from out of the folks on the Democratic side. We have a lot of reason to hope for a great party ticket with the Democrats.

I urge you to look at the evil driving the Republican side and shy away from them until they settle down some.

david k:

You are a train wreck as either an historian or logician. I stand by my other statement too: You are incredibly ignorant. Worse than that, you are stupid because you insist on having everything you think spoon fed to you by someone else instead of thinking for yourself. I would pity you were it not for the fact that you are arrogant too.

Interested, the bright intelligent person he or she is, said:

“To wish we had won the Vietnam war isn't the same as actually having won it.”

Brilliant. No one said we won the Vietnam war. But there is a big difference between winning and losing a war. We left without winning; but neither were we defeated militarily. Figure out what that means. It is a fact. What happened is that we, as a people, gave up the will to prosecute that war any longer. So we slowly withdrew during “vietnamization” and then completely quit as of 1973.

-Then he or she said:

“To imagine we can make Iraq adopt any kind of effective democracy through force of arms is the magical thinking of a toddler. Seems like there's a whole lotta wishin goin on these days...“

These are very interesting, but nevertheless false and useless sentiments. Iraq HAS a democracy, and that democracy represents the will of the majority of the Iraqi people who turned out to vote several times already. There is nothing left to “adopt.” The question is whether those people will be allowed to keep their democracy or suffer the results of a tragic farce at our hands. That choice will depend largely on what WE do in the next year and/or upon what we can get the Iraqi people and the rest of the world to do in that same time period. And, yes, it is time to get the rest of the region and the world involved. They should have been part of the solution from the outset.

Then he/she said:

“We should probably set ideology aside and try to figure out what's really going on, which won't be easy.”

Which won’t be easy? - setting aside ideology or figuring out what’s going on? You are wrong either way.

Setting aside ideology seems to be not only easy, but fashionable. We are so adept at setting aside our ideology that, to the rest of the world, America must look like three men in a two man horse suit who can’t agree on which way to go. One of these days we really must stop careening between violent militarism and outright cowardice. Right now we’re headed toward cowardice again because we, as a people, made a foolish choice to go to war and now we can’t seem to keep our resolve to finish any difficult task. Not only do we end up wrecking countries, we lose American lives, vast quantities of American treasure and, worst yet, our credibility. In the end, we give everyone good reason never to trust us again.

As to figuring out what’s going on, that’s easy too. It’s already been done. Not only has it been done, the current situation was perfectly predictable before we ever decided to go to war. Go consult a history on Iraq during the 20th Century and you will see what I mean. The fact the Iraqis never rose up to overthrow Saddam, but are willing to shoot at us and each other, speaks volumes. It takes patience to maintain a democracy in a country like Iraq which has no previous tradition for democracy. Even if we decide we are not patient enough to help them ourselves, we had better be prepared to help whoever else is patient enough, and we had better start recruiting that help right now. As I said before, we have a duty to help them see this through somehow because we are the cause of the problem.

Your label machine has been working overtime and, as usual, you haven't a clue.

Posted by: John W. | July 7, 2007 8:54 AM

You are a train wreck as either an historian or logician. You are incredibly ignorant. Worse than that, you are stupid. you are arrogant too.

Posted by: John W. | July 7, 2007 5:24 PM

OK John W... so now I know your picture belongs in the dictionary under two words.

Delusional and Hypocrite.

If Spinbolina-Parsemaster were a word, your pic would definately belong there thrice.

You sir, are not only an idiot. You are a stubborn idiot.

Keep believing that we had the North Vietnamese on the ropes and negotiated the hell out of the end of that war. The VC were soooo lucky we let them off the hook in them Paris Peace accords. We had'em right where we wanted em! Whatever helps you sleep at night.

There are fools like you in every country that's ever lost a war... they just can't seem to grasp the concept that their side lost, so they lie to themselves, spin to themselves, deceive themselves, and willfully fool themselves.... anything to avoid the painful truth. "position of strength". Keep saying that to yourself and maybe it'll become true.

Maybe not. After all, you've obviously been repeating that mantra to yourself for a long, looong time. And it aint true yet.

you are such a top-notch historian. You definately seem well versed in this particular war. better so than me, for sure. The sad thing is that, as much as you've researched, you haven't the foggiest clue. It's like you've won the national spelling bee, but you can't write a story to save your life. You still haven't elaborated on how we managed to negotiate our surrender to the enemy from the "position of strength". Other than to blame it on the Democrats in congress, which is an incredibly sorry excuse and a willful rewriting of history (one that we're about to see repeated again in Iraq). If we were in such a position of strength, you would have thought the result would've been the VC surrendering the country, no?

W should have listened:

"Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome." These words were written by George W. Bush's father after expelling the Iraqis from Kuwait.

John W. I think I get it now. I have a friend just like you, but instead of history it's baseball.

This friend can recite statistics of impressive detail. He's like a repository of baseball minutae. But sit down with him and watch a game and you realize he doesn't know baseball from a hole in his arse. While it's pretty cool that he can tell you off the top of his head who lead the NL in doubles in 1981 or who holds the record for career outfield assists, it's sad that the guy cannot grasp the purpose of in-game situational plays or personnel moves.

Despite the fact that you've obviously spent a lot of time and energy learning historical minutae, you haven't the foggiest as to what stories the data tells and what lessons history teaches.

To wit:

1) we LOST the Vietnam war. Period. The purpose of war is to achieve a political goal. We achieved none of ours and the enemy achieved all of theirs. That is a lost war. I know you think we won the military component, but the purpose of military action is to force the other side to bend to your political will, not to kill more people than die on your side or temporarily hold some patch of land. Vietnam in the end was entirely held by the VC. We lost. Militarily, politically, period.

2) Our ability to step away from a poorly led and immoral war is not cowardice. It is an amazing strength and testament to the power of our political system. Our country, unlike many throughoug history (Germany in the early 20th century comes to mind), does not let a single misguided ruler use our power to destroy our nation and perform untold evils upon the world in our name because of a singular faulty ideology. Sure, mistakes are made (Vietnam and Iraq), but our system allows us to prevent these mistakes from turning into WWIII by disempowering the broken leadership and leaving a lose/lose situation instead of stubbornly perpetuating it to it's ultimately destructive end. Doing the smart/moral thing is only cowardace to those who are afraid (i.e. you) and would rather perpetrate evils upon others in order to give themselves a false sense of security.

3) Sure, we gave Iraq a democracy. The question is, do they WANT a democracy. The choice of whether they keep their democracy or not is NOT a matter of what WE do, as you say. You cannot impose a democracy from the outside in perpetuity. It is not the nature of democracy. The choice of whether or not Iraq will keep its democracy will be made by the Iraqis. I personally believe they won't make that choice. That Islamic Theocracy will be the stabilized end of this country.

The bottom line is that you are 0 for 3. All your little rote stats on history, although impressive, haven't given you the slightest clue as to what's going on in history. Congratulations.

Interesting debate, but it seems to have stalled on the definition of what the words "winning" and "losing" actually mean.

Johyn W seems to be using the sports analogy where winners are the ones who get the trophy. Fair enough.

The others seem to be looking at it more in terms of total *cost* to each side (in money, lives, goodwill, forgone opportunities, etc). It might be tricky to assign $ values to some of those factors, but fair enough too.

Might I suggest a third approach? Use the sports analogy until the game is over. Then, if there's no clear winner, carefully count the losses on each side. Whoever has lost *least* is the winner.

To be honest, I have no idea who the winner would be in this case (Vietnam was before my time) but I'd be very interested to see what you guys think.

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."



Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."




John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."


Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998


"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."



Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002


"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."


Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."





Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."


Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."



Al Gore > September 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."



Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."




Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."



Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."




Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002
"(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."



Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002
"With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."




Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."



John Kerry > January 31, 2003
"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn't vote for me."




Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002
"I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."



Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."




Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
"The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key ques