Entries Tagged as ''

Mainstream Media Complicit in Iraq-Vietnam Parallels

Thomas Friedman writing a op-ed in the New York Times compared the current war in Iraq to the Tet Offensive. For the record I think he is right. All the parallels are there. The only problem is that so many people do not understand the Tet Offensive. This is a battle the US did not lose.

The Tet offensive was launched by the North Vietnanese Army (NVA) in 1968 in an attempt to catch the US and the South Vietnamese off-guard. Instead of a glorious victory as they had hoped, the NVA lost and lost big-time. The MSM, led by Walter Cronkite, saw the ferocity of the attacks and declared that the war was not winnable. In published memoirs by NVA generals, North Vietnam were ready to capitulate and sue for peace. The NVA stuck with the war only because of the American media who had already given up. Wikipedia says this about tet:

The Tết Offensive can be considered a crushing military defeat for the Communist forces, as neither the Viet Cong nor the North Vietnamese army achieved any of their tactical goals. Furthermore, the operational cost of the offensive was dangerously high, with the Viet Cong essentially crippled by the huge losses inflicted by South Vietnamese and other Allied forces. Nevertheless, the Offensive is widely considered a turning point of the war in Vietnam, with the NLF and PAVN winning an enormous psychological and propaganda victory. Although US public opinion polls continued to show a majority supporting involvement in the war, this support continued to deteriorate and the nation became increasingly polarized over the war.[1] President Lyndon Johnson saw his popularity fall sharply after the Offensive, and he withdrew as a candidate for re-election in March of 1968. The Tết Offensive is frequently seen as an example of the value of propaganda, media influence and popular opinion in the pursuit of military objectives.

Lets jump ahead thirty-eight years to 2006. The US launched a war into Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction and remove a dictator who defied UN resolutions and supported terrorists around the world. After removing Saddam Hussein from power, terrorists have poured into Iraq from neighboring countries to bolster the faltering insurgent attacks. As suicide attacks have killed both soldiers and civilians alike, the MSM have taken this occasion to switch sides and support those who are killing our soldiers. The media have declared this war all but winnable. There is no way for the terrorists or ‘insurgents’ to beat the United States military. The terrorists are losing and losing big-time, but the MSM in a move that can only be described as traitorous is supporting enemies of the United States. The American public led on by the treacherous media has been slowly turning against this war.

There is no doubt the war is polarizing the country. Most Americans either support the war, or they are against it. Very few are ambivalent. As such the President is losing support. He is given little credit for trying to beat back the terrorists and defend the United States of America from further terrorist attacks.

In an interview on ABC, President Bush said Friedman was right, but only as far as how the terrorists are trying to influence an election. Of course I would also add the parallel also extends to how the MSM is treating the war.

U.S. President George W. Bush says he sees a possible parallel in the increase in violence in Iraq and the 1968 Tet offensive that prompted Americans to lose support for the Vietnam War.

But the White House on Thursday said the president had not been making the analogy that Iraq had reached a similar turning point. Instead, he was saying that insurgents were possibly increasing violence to try to influence coming U.S. elections. (snip)

“Look, here’s how I view it,” Bush said. “First of all, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. They are dangerous. They are lethal. They are trying to not only kill American troops, but they’re trying to foment sectarian violence.

“They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw,” he said.

President Bush is absolutely correct. There are three distinct parallels between the Vietnam War and this War in Iraq: the reporting by the MSM and the efforts our enemies to influence an election.

The third parallel are the actions of the cut-and-run crowd. In the liberal blogosphere there is a chorus of voices actually hoping the US loses in Iraq. They have even found their very own Ho Chi Minh in the person of Osama bin Laden. The only thing not found in the news is another Jane Fonda posing with al-Qaeda members as they shoot at our soldiers.

For some reason the MSM are portraying George Bush’s comments as saying the US can not win in Iraq, which is not what he said. He was discussing the actions of the foreign terrorists in Iraq. Bush should have included the treacherous actions of the MSM in both this war and the Vietnam War in his discussion on ABC.

There certainly are parallels between the Vietnam War and this War in Iraq. But most noteworthy are the actions by the msm and liberals which constitute a fifth column in both wars. Forgotten in this discussion of the War in Iraq and the War on Terror in general is the fact that we must win this war to be safe from terrorist attacks. It would really be nice if the MSM could finally chose the right side and support both the United States and our troops as they combat terrorists.

Democrats Hide Behind Slogans

There is an old saying, “Don’t count your chickens before they hatch,” which is exactly what the Democrats have been doing with calling Nancy Pelosi the next Speaker of the House.  The Democrats have been celebrating their victory a little too early.  In poll after poll, the Democratic lead is beginning to dwindle.  Michael Steele is surging in the Maryland Senate race as is Arnold Schwarzenegger in California.  There are others.

The reason: caveat emptor—‘Let the buyer beware.’  Voters may be beginning to realize what they would be getting if they voted for the Democratic candidate.  While so many candidates claim they are independent, they all seem to vote for their party most of the time.  What this means is that the Democratic candidates will still support abortion on demand, national health care (Powerline has a post on why the Democrats are not talking about health care), cut-and-run from Iraq (allowing this young democracy to become one of the greatest terrorist havens in the world), raising taxes, expand welfare, and would give constitutional rights to captured terrorists.  Only they do not talk about these things because the American people would not support such a liberal agenda.  The only thing they do talk about is what George Bush is doing wrong.  They also talk in slogans.  They talk about how poorly the economy is doing. (when in fact the economy is performing very well)  They talk in obscure ideas and overly broad policy proposals.  They are always coming up with a plan to deal with problems.  Seldom do these plans come to fruition because they would be rejected.

As a result Democrats hope to win the majority in the Senate and the House by saying nothing about what they stand for.  They are against President Bush.  They are against the War in Iraq.  They are against the terrorist surveillance program.  They are against tax cuts.  They are against the Patriot Act which protects the United State from terror attacks.  They are against…

At the same time the Democrats are for…new ideas, cleaning up government, giving the people a voice in government, strengthening America.  What does all this crap mean?  Absolutely nothing.  The Democratic Party knows how to change things, but if these ideas were espoused, they know the American people would reject them out right.  And so Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean and Harry Reid concentrate only on how they do not want it run.

Coming up to the mid-term election Nancy Pelosi is pulling a Waldo.  No one knows where she is.  If Pelosi was to crisscross the nation in support of the Democrats nationwide, she would doom her party’s chances for winning in November.  She would rather the country focus on the obscure plans advocated by her party.

An interesting side note is what each party is focusing on this election.  In a rare turnabout the Democrats are talking about the war in Iraq while the Republicans are talking about the strong economy.  I guess nothing stays the same for long.

A vote for a Democratic candidate is a vote for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.  She would start the country down a path of liberalism from which this nation may never recover.

The upcoming vote in the midterm election is going to be pivotal.   The country has two extremely divergent views from which to choose—continue supporting the Bush tax cuts, support our troops, continue to expand the economy and continue fighting the war against terror.  The other decision would be to roll back the tax cuts, increase welfare spending, leave Iraq to the terrorists, open borders with Mexico, and to leave the US more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.  The difference between the two views could not be more stark.  It is my hope the American people realize what they are really voting for when they enter the voting booth in November.

Blog Problems

There has not been any posting in the last few days due to a typo on one of my posts.  It totally messed things up and took days to find.  Things should be back to normal now.