I've Heard This Song Before

Salon.com, which I rarely read any more (and perhaps this is why), has published a historical account of how Democratic doves won their war in southeast Asia.

On the third page of this even-handed academic work (so even-handed it labeled President Bush as "war-mongering president" in the first paragraph of the post, but I digress) the author, Rick Perlstein, states:


...McGovern-Hatfield failed because of presidential intimidation, in the face of overwhelming public support. Nixon and Nixon surrogates pinioned legislators inclined to vote for it with the same old threats. A surviving document recording the talking points had them say they would be giving "aid and comfort" to an enemy seeking to "kill more Americans," and, yes, "stab our men in the back," and "must assume responsibility for all subsequent deaths" if they succeeded in "tying the president's hands through a Congressional Appropriations route."

But isn't that interesting: There wouldn't have been subsequent deaths if they had had the fortitude to stand up to the threats.

What Perlstein means, of course, is that there wouldn't have been subsequent American deaths if liberal doves had forced an earlier withdraw from southeast Asia.

There are a number of deaths--just a few-- that Perlstein doesn't address that occurred after we ceded southeast Asia to communism.


Cambodia Killing Fields

These skulls represent just a few of the estimated 1.7-3.0 million Cambodians who died on Pol Pot's killing fields. 165,000 perished in Vietnamese "re-education camps" after doves forced our withdrawal, and South Vietnam collapsed. Millions more fled the country in fear for their lives. The mass exodus gave birth to the term "boat people," as a description of the resulting international humanitarian crisis.

Perlstein advocates today's liberal doves to follow the strategies of their past, even though those policies resulted in the murder of millions and the displacement of millions more.

How many more Iraqis may die as a result of the near-term withdrawal from Iraq that Perlstein and other doves desire? How many Iraqis can and will flee?

What kind of failed nation-state would remain? How many more Muslims would be wooed to the cause of Jihad as they see America defeated?

Perlstein and his fellow doves refuse to look that far down the road, in either direction. To defeat a "war-mongering president" and teach America a lesson, the sacrifices are worth it... just so long as those sacrificed aren't Americans.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:19 AM

Comments

1 You keep interfering in some good ole history revisionism. At this rate, Salon will never be able to move to the next phase of air brushing history, titled "Stalin Good, Truman Bad".

Posted by: Actual at January 25, 2007 07:54 AM (wthW1)

2 The liberal's relentless attack against America's will to win is placing us squarely on that post-Vietnam road. What they refuse to acknowledge and give any value to is the lives lost and bodies maimed in executing Public Law 107-243... a law that many liberal (Democrat) legislators voted in favor of ( a full 67% of the House and 70% of the Senate). Their current cowardly actions disgrace everyone who has worn or is wearing this nation's military uniform.

Posted by: Old Soldier at January 25, 2007 08:47 AM (X2tAw)

3 Linked over at my house. http://pcrevolt.blogspot.com/2007/01/results-from-withdrawing-from-iraq.html

Can't seem to get trackback to work.

Posted by: CoRev at January 25, 2007 09:19 AM (Hr52v)

4 Try THIS

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 25, 2007 10:06 AM (Xw2ki)

5 As steet cops say - don't pay any attention to what they're saying, watch their hands if you want to know their true intentions.

The left has never had any conscience problems with ultra-high body counts. Watch their hands, watch the results.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 25, 2007 03:44 PM (LITKT)

6 bravo. aso: dove retreat from vietnamization occurred 2 yrs after last us troops had left.

also, this led to afghanistan invasion and then the fall of the shah.

also, along with retreat from somalia this led binladen to bvelive he could do to the USA what mujahadeen (and USA) did to ussr.

the dove don't want victory and they don;t accept that retreat is defeat. they love appeasing, on principle.

DEMOCRATS REALLY DON'T WANT VICTORY
SALON:

"Why Democrats can stop the war"

"STOP" not win.

KERRY:

"Above all else, the mission we must all join is to end the war in Iraq."

"END" not win.

GOLDBERG/NRO:

... the Dems would not stand up en masse was when Bush said we should pursue victory:

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

ME: The Dems don't want to win, and they do not care about the consequences, either.

Posted by: reliapundit at January 25, 2007 11:54 PM (BBXV+)

7 WE left these people hanging out to dry at the end of Gulf War 1. Kissenger has sold the Kurds to the Regime 2 of 3 times, (why he can't go to Europe, arrest warrants)were you bitching about that? We did it before and NOBODY seemed to complain.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at January 26, 2007 01:02 PM (Iw/jc)






Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0068 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0054 seconds, 15 records returned.
Page size 9 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.