The leading communist at the the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation, Cynthia Tucker, wrote in her column in Sunday's paper about how bad the situation is in Iraq.
Never underestimate the power of myth. It can solder broken resolve, fuel astounding acts of courage and overwhelm evidence and reason.
Or used by liberals it can weaken resolve and turn public opinion against the war on terror just like it did during the Viet Nam War. She continues:
It has also served to keep rank-and-file soldiers and their families back home squarely behind the president. Few soldiers or their families have publicly expressed doubts about the Iraqi mission, despite clear evidence of a con job --- from pre-war assurances they would be greeted as liberators to a post-invasion backdoor draft that will keep many overseas past their tours.
Dontcha just love these armchair general liberals? How many things do go right in war? Remember, these are the same people who said that Afghanistan would be a quagmire and there would be thousands upon thousands of refugees, not to mention all the body bags that would be needed for the thousands of American casualties. They've been remarkably quiet about the first elections ever held in Afghanistan.
They said the same thing about Iraq. There would be so many refugees from the war that any relief efforts by humanitarian organizations would be overwhelmed. Part of the reasons the families and the soldiers are behind the president is that they are hearing a different story than what Old Media is telling.
The latest bad news is the lack of armor for Humvees that was brought up by the soldier, who was coached by a news reporter (go figger).
War is unpredictable, but the idiots on the left think that the generals should have been prescient enough to predict the insurgency. This, of course, is the fault of Bush and Rumsfeld they say. Can you imagine if these dickheads had been around on December 16, 1944? This was the Germans' Ardennes Offensive, better known as the Battle of the Bulge. There were 81,000 American casualties, including 23,554 captured and 19,000 killed. I can just hear our current crop of leftists: I thought we were winning. The generals should have known about this. Fire Ike! Bring the troops home!
We've lost 1200 men and the chattering magpies on the left are trying to compare Iraq to Viet Nam. Cynthia continues.
Painful reality hits hard, too, when families see horribly maimed young men and women who will never recover anything resembling a normal life. While the numbers of war dead have been faithfully reported --- even as the Bush administration has deflected attention from them --- the number of casualties, closing in on 10,000, has gone little noticed.
Goes little noticed? Everytime I read an AP story about Iraq, it always has the number of men killed. Yes, I hate to see anyone killed but this war, by any standards, other than those used by liberals, has been an unqualified success. And I have heard from soldiers in Iraq, like my nephew, who have said what we have done to improve conditions in Iraq. The press does not want to talk about that. All they want to talk about is the insurgency going on in the Sunni Triangle.
And then she goes on about one of the wounded men.
The New England Journal of Medicine reports on one airman who survived even though he lost both legs, his right hand and part of his face. "How he and others like him will be able to live and function remains an open question," the article noted.
Howza 'bout Max Stumpy Cleland? He lost both of his legs and an arm. In his career he was head of the Veterans Administration, Georgia Secretary of State, and a United States Senator. And just recently he was John Fonda Kerry's mascot on the campaign trail. He also had a short stint as a postman trying to deliver a letter to the president.
And it wouldn't be a Cynthia Tucker column without the requisite class warfare.
These burdens are borne by a relatively small sliver of the American population --- the working class. Enlisted men and women tend to come from households earning between $32,000 and $33,500, according to a 1999 Defense Department study. (The median American income is $43,300.) The poorest of the poor don't go; neither do the affluent.
Maybe if the poorest of the poor did go, they would learn a trade. I learned electronics in the Navy. I also went to college on the GI Bill. My nephew, by the way, comes from a very affluent household. His parents, in retirement, earn more than the median American income. Pat Tillman was not a pauper. Anyway, what does it matter what class they come from. It is a volunteer military. The only thing missing from this column is the race card. I'm surprised she didn't say sumpin' about that.
It is downright weird that so many of them have been taken in by his story of a just war when their sons and daughters, husbands and wives --- not the scions of the wealthy --- are the ones paying the ultimate price for it.This contradiction simply cannot hold much longer, and perhaps it won't have to. Bush may be planning to use the cover of January elections in Iraq to declare victory and leave --- whether the country is stable or not.
And that's what Cynthia, and Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand and the rest of the people on the left want us to do. Pack up and come home. After all, what we should have been doing from the start is asking "why do they hate us?" To them we need to determine the root cause of terrorism and address that. Then we can sit down with Osama bin Laden, Kim Yuk Foo from Korea, and the mad mullahs from Iran and sing Kumbaya.
All Cynthia is saying is, "Give peace a chance".
It worked for Viet Nam didn't it?
Hey Denny!
My fiancee and I have a discussion board and I might add that your rantings have inspired us on more than a few occassions.However, this time I would like to ask if I may repost this rant of your's (crediting you, of course) in its entirity.
I need your permission for this.
Posted by: The Moose on December 12, 2004 09:48 PMYou have my permission. Go ahead.
Posted by: Denny Wilson on December 12, 2004 10:02 PMDenny, I cant believe your congress critter (the other cynthia) hasnt opened her mouth yet,I dont know which cynthia is worse!
Posted by: Pharaoh on December 13, 2004 04:56 AMAh, yes, the "poor" in the military. My son-in-law's parents live in a house that is 4 times the size of mine, and his mother is an RN and his dad is retired but is now working another job because he was bored. They're rolling in money.
And I'm surprised she didn't bring up the stupidity factor. You know, that people joining the military are stupid and have been coerced and manipulated. My son-in-law is in the Navy on a nuclear submarine. I gave him for his birthday The Elegant Universe and he was reading Chaos when I went up there in August. We discuss quantum physics (I have a layman's understanding) when we get together, and I'm lending him my copy of The Holographic Universe when I see them in February.
Now he's talking about going Navy as a career. He must be really stupid.
Elizabeth
Imperial Keeper
Thanks! :)
Posted by: The Moose on December 13, 2004 10:53 AMYes, it's a "Con Job" and a war for Oil - supposedly. And they're really got a wedgie over the 1200 combat deaths (all tragedies to be sure). But if it's a war for oil then what about the 40,000 + deaths each year in this country alone caused by automobile. Aren;t those deaths of men, women and children the result of "oil"?
They could care less about the troops and how many die. To the left, they're all suckers (soldiers). What they really hate is the US and our free market economy and all it's "injustice".
Posted by: Jesse Brown on December 13, 2004 01:55 PMThis is at its core a "publish-or-perish" issue. Most columnists are in the business of either simply selling newsprint or supporting a political agenda for personal gain.
Never has the old saw "Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed forever to repeat them" been more apropos. Por ejemplo: we had VietNam won -- hands down! But Fonda and Kerry and other liberals and opportunists contined to give aid, comfort, and support to the enemy.
If the American media could just STFU for a few months, Al Jazeera would begin to lose steam and much of the "insurgent" support would dissipate. We are often our own worst enemies in terms of information security and common sense.
Posted by: el ronaldo on December 13, 2004 04:04 PMAll I am saying, is give war "A chance"!
Posted by: Darrell on December 13, 2004 07:29 PMGive peace a chance? The idea does work. After we send them to their eternal peace, (not piece) They fret not one bit. We just need to add a few more to the roster.
I have a friend with 40&8. They are in constant contact with the men and women in Iraq. The message They get is always encouraging, and its coming directly from the trenches.
You know... i'm still baffled as to how exactly you "win" Vietnam. Invade the north? Nuke it? Then establish some silly puppet general in some military dictatorship as a bulwark against communism with America footing the bill and the manpower?
Doesn't sound a whole lot better than what did happen... only we didn't pay more money and blood for that outcome.
Don't blame the liberals at home. The U.S. military had 10 years to win and it didn't do it. I think the problem obviously starts with high level military strategy. Or lack thereof.
Posted by: Robin Palm on December 14, 2004 12:33 PMBut Robin - We were winning. TET was a failure for the NVA and the Viet Cong. Yes we had ten years of fighting a defensive war rather than an offensive war, and after TET which Cronkite dubbed a failure what we had gained on the battlefield we lost at home. What would have been a win? Actually, a tie like what we had in Korea. Maybe then there would have not been the re-education camps, the boat people and the slaughter in Cambodia. Even an outspoken anti-war liberal like Joan Baez thinks maybe we should have done more rather than cutting and running.
Remember I was there. The American soldier wanted to win. It was the politicians who wouldn't let us and, yes, I include Nixon and Kissinger in that group.
Posted by: Denny Wilson on December 14, 2004 04:17 PM---"But Robin - We were winning. TET was a failure for the NVA and the Viet Cong. Yes we had ten years of fighting a defensive war rather than an offensive war, and after TET which Cronkite dubbed a failure what we had gained on the battlefield we lost at home. What would have been a win? Actually, a tie like what we had in Korea. Maybe then there would have not been the re-education camps, the boat people and the slaughter in Cambodia. Even an outspoken anti-war liberal like Joan Baez thinks maybe we should have done more rather than cutting and running.
Remember I was there. The American soldier wanted to win. It was the politicians who wouldn't let us and, yes, I include Nixon and Kissinger in that group."---
That is a tidy little package that preserves your ego, isn't it. I suppose you should not be faulted for wishing to present that warped view of history but in all actuality, our dear little war in Vietnam was lost when General Westmoreland took over and instituted his policies. He lost the goodwill of the Vietnam populace, and from that moment on the war was a lost cause.
Posted by: Ace Fridley on December 24, 2004 09:54 AM