Sunday, July 09, 2006
Varifrank: "Yet the left is hopeful that the same will be true of Iraq, actually hoping and wishing and praying that Iraq comes to the same fate as Vietnam as if it was a good thing, ignoring all of the history of what actually happened after we left them to fight alone with our damnable inaction. Vietnam should be a warning to the left of the consequences of failure, but instead they are attracted to the hope that Iraq might turn out to be Vietnam.

By Iraq turning into a “new Vietnam” their worldview holds water; they feel relevant and worthwhile and to the left, that’s all that really matters. So what if 7 million more people die in the process? It’s all about how you feel and your self worth that matters the most to the left.

So what if a few people get hurt in the process?"


Syl said...

There's another aspect of the left's going to the past that is generally ignored by the right. Nixon, Watergate, the Church Committee, spying on anti-war groups, etc.

The Left brings it up to compare Bush with Nixon, the right should bring it up to compare the REACTION to Nixon and the harm that did to the office of the president.

Harm Bush is attempting to rectify. And for that Bush is accused of a powergrab.

The Left got what it wanted because of the excesses of Nixon and they refuse to admit that they went too far.

I'm tired of hearing about the Left comparing Iraq to Vietnam. That's an old old story.

I would also like to hear more about Keller's misuse of the public trust. To me Keller is the Nixon of today. But as far as I know, I'm the only one who's ever brought it up.

The battle ahead is going to be about Bush's power grab, not Iraq, and we better as heck be prepared.

Rick Ballard said...

That's twisting history just a little, although your central thesis is correct. The executive "excesses" (actually, commie hunting) went back to the late '40's. J. Edgar was infiltrating back when Bobby Kennedy was carrying the ball for Tailgunner Joe. There is a decent argument to be made that Deep Throat Felt brought down Nixon because he perceived Nixon as being too soft on chasing the commies still hanging around in DC.

Keller is not abusing the "public trust" because he has never earned any. He's doing a fair job of ruining the Red Rag and I doubt that the RNC wants to interfere with what he's up to. It's not as if a wholesale conversion to socialism is occuring.

Syl said...

Keller most certainly abused the 'public trust'--in the institution of journalism.

I'm not calling for the downfall of the press as an institution because of Keller. On the other hand the institution of the office of the president was degraded in the '70's. FISA is a part of that. The Senate Intelligence Committee is a part of that. The wall was a part of that and was built higher by Gorelick in the '90's.

It just seems to me that the left is more worried about political spying on anti-war groups than anything else. It's always about them.

chuck said...

The executive "excesses" (actually, commie hunting) went back to the late '40's.

Goes back to Roosevelt. I believe he had folks like Ford and Lindbergh under surveillence and could blackmail them if the need arose. I think Nixon was somewhat shocked that he couldn't get away with what Johnson, Kennedy, and others had. The press played a role in that.

I am becoming more and more cynical about power as I age. I think the founders were onto something: the only way to prevent abuse is to keep government limited so that abuse is limited. Small government is gone, however, and I doubt we shall ever see it again.

Syl said...

Small government is gone.

So is a small press.

The New York Times has gotten way too big for its britches.

Skookumchuk said...


Small government is gone, however, and I doubt we shall ever see it again.

Hmm. Maybe, maybe not. One the one hand, the inertia behind the mammoth bureaucracies certainly can keep them going for a very long time. And they have formidable constituencies.

But on the other hand, who among the brightest and most creative really - really - thinks that massive Federal bureaucracies are necessary prerequisites to formulating optimal solutions to any number of problems, from responding to hurricanes to providing health care.

Much therefore depends on how well the Feds deal with the crises of the future.

To Varifrank's point:

Yet the left is hopeful that the same will be true of Iraq, actually hoping and wishing and praying that Iraq comes to the same fate as Vietnam as if it was a good thing...

Yes. For many reasons, stated here many times. There may also be another minor reason at work. Small, but still worth pointing out. A kind of facile, naive assumption of American omnipotence, made by those with little knowledge of the military or national security. So while some certainly do want to see the West humbled, retreating into isolationism, there is also the belief that "teaching them [Washington] a lesson" carries no consequences, and that the spies and the wonder weapons and the omnipotent, all-seing state will always be there to protect them. So long as a Democrat is in charge, of course.

reliapundit said...

u write: "the same fate as vietnam"

as if we lost militarily.

we did not.

the last US ground troops left on 3/29/73. (nixon had succeeded inb ENDING the draft and VIETNAMIZING the war.)


The Dem Left Doves will certainly do the same thing to the Iraqis and afghanis if goven the chance; if elected to majorities in either house of Congress they will cut off fianicial support (and try to impeach Bush - as they did nixon).