Go to A Distant Drum of the Coming Revolution
- Add a comment
- Go to Iraq is Another Vietnam!
No apolgy ever needed, Scoop!
I may not always agree with you, but you can comment to your heart's content, and welcome to it.
Thanks for the quotes, of course there are Republicans opposing the war. But compare the rhetoric between Democrats and Republicans. While some of the Republicans, notably Hagel (thanks for reminding me to nail him!), are simply mistaken, consider how the Democrats talk - Reid calling Bush a liar and a loser, Gore screaming that he betrayed the country, Screamin' Howard bragging about hating Republicans, Kennedy lying about how demoralized the troops are, it just goes on and on. You can see plenty of examples by reading down my blog. And it's not only Democrats in Congress. Consider Cindy Sheehan calling Bush a fuehrer and the protesters at Walter Reed Hospital yelling at wounded soldiers that they suffer in vain.
posted by
WriterofLight
on August 25, 2005 at 5:42 PM
| link to this | reply
Vietnam No, Similarities Yes
You can’t blame it all on the Democrats;
First there is Republican Chuck Hagel, Vietnam vet; "We should start figuring out how we get out of there, but with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."
Hagel said "stay the course" is not a policy. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning," he said.
Then we have these two Republican congressmen,; "There is just no enthusiasm for this war," said Representative John J. Duncan Jr., a Tennessee Republican who opposes the war. "Nobody is happy about it. It certainly is not going to help Republican candidates, I can tell you that much."
Representative Wayne T. Gilchrest, a Maryland Republican who originally supported the war but has since turned against it, said he had encountered "a lot of Republicans grousing about the situation as a whole and how they have to respond to a lot of questions back home."
And this from Jack Valenti, former Pres. Johnson advisor, speaking to Howard Fineman from Newsweek, "Jack told me yesterday, 'You know I smell Vietnam all over again. It's happening at a faster time table. Vietnam went over a decade. This is happening two, two and a half years.' He said 'Here are the similarities, we don't always know who the enemy is. We don't know where they are all the time. We don't know who we're shooting at half the time. We don't know what the battlefield is. We don't have many allies. We don't really have an exit strategy. And public opinion is crumbling under our feet, or in this case the President's feet.
Sorry to make it a long comment but I think all factors have to be considered from both parties.
posted by
scoop
on August 25, 2005 at 6:44 AM
| link to this | reply
WriterofLight
Good post and right on point. Politicians who are more concerned with a personal agenda than the welfare of the nation are nothing new. Vietnam, and now the war on terror, are just the latest examples of a political and media institution who consistantly criticize without a single, viable alternative.
The Network is another example. Time and time again there are posts who savage the President, his policies, and the war on terror. And, like the representatives they continue to elect, never offer a viable alternative to anything. They are quick to call in to question the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with their baseless positions only to demonstrate their stuborn ignorance of the facts, the truth of the issue, from the price of crude oil, to battlefield tactics.
posted by
twodog
on August 25, 2005 at 6:28 AM
| link to this | reply