It's Senator Kennedy's Vietnam That Matters Most

Update: I should preface this post, as you read below, imagine if we followed the Kennedy line on Iraq and pulled out leaving sectarian and terrorist groups behind to slaughter large numbers of people. THAT would be our fault, as we invaded Iraq.

It would convince our enemies we are weak, it would tell any moderate friends in the middle-East we weren't to be trusted ... and, most importantly, it would give the so-called Arab street a justifiable reason to become even more hostile to America. In short, Kennedy's fecklessness would do precisely the opposite of what we need to do as regards the Middle East and the global war on terror.

It is a recipe for disaster cooked up by an unaccomplished fool who has never done any great service for America. The sum total of his accomplishment in life is to have ensconced himself in a political office for which he isn't worthy by trading on his family name, to which he has contributed little besides shame. Kennedy is as wrong on Iraq and wrong for America as one can be.

In essence, it would alienate the very people Kennedy suggests we appease. The cut and run Democrat plan for Iraq would be an unmitigated disaster for our Homeland Security and International relations issues. Read below and project the consequences of Kennedy's Vietnam misjudgment onto the Middle East and you'll see he has nothing positive to contribute to a solution for Iraq at all.

Senator Ted Kennedy recently stated that Iraq was George Bush's Vietnam.

In his speech, Mr. Kennedy, a Democrat from Massachusetts, called the Iraq war “George Bush’s Vietnam.”

It's only fitting that we take a look at the real tragedy of Vietnam, as it was by definition Senator Kennedy's Vietnam that was the greatest horror with somewhere between 1.5 to 3 million innocent people out of a population of approximately 7 million brutally murdered at the hands of the Khmer Rouge. Kennedy's policies abandoned them to that fate, though he continues to hide it, even as he would gladly abandon the Iraqis to their worst fate now.

Here is Ted Kennedy on Meet The Press as recently as April 23. Kennedy continues to be in complete denial of the deaths, as well as his clear culpability for them. Host Tim Russert didn't press him on it one bit. Don't look for the MSM to tell you the genuine results of Kennedy's vision when it comes to war and peace.

MR. RUSSERT: If we got out and there was a civil war, chaos, and you saw al-Qaida moving in record numbers and Zarqawi exerting great control over the country, would you go back in?

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, first of all, I heard the same kinds of suggestions at the time of the end of the Vietnam War, the great blood bath, we’re going to have over 100,000 people that were going to be murdered and killed at that time. And for those of us that were strongly opposed to the war, heard those same kinds of arguments at the time. ... The time has come, we have seen Americans do what they could do militarily, and the time has come for them to come home.

To hear Kennedy today, you'd never know millions died, at least in significant part, because of him and the peace policy he endorsed.

The text, a letter from Kennedy in 1973, a short theatrical re-enactment and the brief documentary film footage below document and honor the millions dead ... dead because of the cut and run policies of politicians like Reid, Kerry, Pelosi and Kennedy. If he has yet to take responsibility for the millions he willingly left to be slaughtered through the Vietnam era, why would anyone think he'd ever be held accountable for the Iraqis he would resign to a similar fate, today? ... all for the sake of peace, or so he says.

Look at the skulls ... the killing fields of bones. While the re-enactment is just that, the second clip is very real and documents the true horror of what Ted Kennedy stood for once - and would gladly stand for, again.

The Killing Fields Wiki

The executed were buried in mass graves. In order to save ammunition, the convicted were often executed using hammers, Axe handles, spades or sharpened bamboo sticks. The soldiers who committed the executions were mostly young men or women from peasant families.

The Khmer Rouge regime arrested and eventually executed nearly anyone suspected of connections with the former government or with foreign governments, as well as professionals and intellectuals who were the class targets of the Khmer Rouge. Ethnic Vietnamese, ethnic Charms (who were and are Muslims), Cambodian Christians, and the Buddhist monk hood were the demographic targets of persecution.

The best-known of these sites is Cheng Ek. Today, Cheng Ek is the site of a Buddhist memorial to the terror, and Tuol Sleng has a museum commemorating the genocide. A 1984 motion picture, The Killing Fields, depicts the events that led to and occurred during this time. The film tells the story of Cambodian journalist Dith Pran, played by Cambodian actor Haing S. Ngor, and his journey to escape the death camps.

Putting aside allegations, documented here at Ace's, that Kennedy collaborated to some degree with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, what follows is the real Kennedy legacy when it comes to war. h/t to Mark Levin for mentioning it on his show tonight. His fan blog site is here. He has a letter posted Mark received from Kennedy in 1973. I quote in part:

Dear Mr. Levin:

In response to your most recent letter concerning our continued support of the Lon Nol government in Cambodia, I would just like to say our support of that corrupt regime and the one in Saigon is doing nothing to bring the principles of democracy closer to the people being controlled by them. I am not saying that a communist regime would be better, but I am contending that by ending the massive bloodshed brought about by the continued bombing, peaceful development and reconstruction of that area can begin.

Below are the actual results of Kennedy's idea of peace. A brief clip from The Killing Fields:

Below is the museum to the real legacy from Vietnam - a legacy as much Kennedy's as anyone else's. These skulls are real.

Jules Crittenden reflects on some personal experience here.

Comments

[Dammitman]

You're knocking over a straw man.

Yes, it's true that pulling out may lead to a very bad outcome in Iraq. But there no reason to believe that the President's plan -- which is really just more of the same -- will put us in any better position. We do know, however, that his plan will cost us in other theaters where the odds of success would be greater.

Regarding Iraq, listen closely tonight to the force levels the President is proposing. The early reports are that he will ask for an increase of not more than 20,000 troops. This would leave U.S. forces at lower levels than at the last Iraqi election and a few other points in 2004 and 2005. You can call that a surge to put lipstick on it, but it's nothing new.

What's more, it fails to take into account what we've learned from the first three years of fighting. According to the Pentagon's manual on counterinsurgency, a successful campaign demands an increase in troop levels several times greater than what the President is calling for. Why isn't he calling for those troops? We don't have them and we could not train and deploy them in less than a year or two -- and that would require a draft or some equally fundamental shift in our recruiting and force posture abroad.

Even for the very small increase in force levels being contemplated, we are going to have to shorten out-rotations and lengthen tours of duty, and we may have to divert troops from other posts. There was even a report -- which I think we all hope was in error -- that the Pentagon may divert troops from Afghanistan to meet the President's goals. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Criticize the Democrats' plans, by all means. But do it in light of the alternatives available. Or, to paraphrase Rumsfeld, remember that we are at war with the army we have, not the army we wished we had.

[susan]

Kennedy's probably right. I went to pick my son up at school after bb practice and saw about 10 or 15 kids wearing anti-bush tshirts. You know, "Bush's Vietnam" "Bush is a moron" and my personal favorite "Do your country a favor, impeach Bush". I won't let my kids wear them but it's getting harder and harder to say no. Even the principal supports them.

[yyy]

The generals in charge of the war were against the surge option.

Nuf said.

Bush wants a surge because he wants it, he wants a surge because he doesn't want to do what the Baker report recommended and he doesn't want to do what the war critics have recommended. Period.

If we haven't been able to set and achieve any goals for 4 years, if the Iraqis haven't been able to 'stand up' for 4 years, what in the hell difference is 20,000 more troops and some 'benchmarks' written on a piece of paper going to make?

What has changed in Iraq since October? Is Maliki less beholden to Sadr? Less tied to the Shia militias? Is the training that so far has failed going to undergo a miraculous change?

[Fred Beloit]

The trolls under Crittenden's piece use the same techniques as those under yours, Dan. Insult, verbosity, litany of false charges, so many there are too many to answer conveniently. These are intended to distract from the main issue I suppose. The central issue gets short schrift. The issue: Senator Kennedy cannot bear to look at the results of the policy he supported concerning Viet Nam. He wants to apply the same policy in Iraq. This is, one guesses, maturing in wisdom over time. In show business, however, of remakes they say: They liked it once; they'll love it twice. But it was a disaster then and it will be worse now because muslimists will be inspired to more and worse attacks upon us.

[Fred Beloit]

yyy, how good it is to, um, encounter you again. Goal 1: depose Saddam = done. Goal 2: hold elections to begin democratic governance = done. Goal 3: see that justice is done to a brutal, murdering dictator = done. Goal 4: Establish security for the new government until they can stand on their own = in process. I don't mind discussions with the Lefties. I just dislike having to go over the same points again and again ad nauseam. Like, Bush is a coward who dodged the draft. Yes, but he was a fighter pilot. Etc, Etc, Etc, OR Why, Why, Why.

[yyy]

Goal 1: Find and destroy weapons of mass destruction
Not Applicable/No weapons of mass destruction existed

Goal 2: Depose Saddam
Done

Goal 3: Free the Iraqi people
Outlook Cloudy/ask again later

Goal 4: Change balance of power in ME
Done [cept that the balance didnt' shift the way the dummy expected it to]

**Please not that Goal 1 is the ONLY Goal that was articulated as a reason for the pre emptive war...fighting them over there instead of over here, which either makes the Bush Administration blatant liars or brutally incompetant morons, either way it looks bad for Goal 3.

The administration is not believable, trusthworthy or competant.

[MinorRipper]

So let me get this straight: Bush is now defying the Baker Report, Congress, the military, and the American public by escalating the war...Forgive me for not brimming over with confidence...
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

[yyy]

I truly have never seen such brazen evil as to so blatantly continue this shell game of changing goals, changing rationales and now, changing who to blame for the mess in Iraq.

I guess since the generals in Iraq, troops in Iraq, Pentagon and joint chiefs all told Bush that the surge option was not a good idea, he must be back listening to 'god'...and the neocons.

Hey, we've got a volunteer army, so if Bush doesn't care about wasting a few dozen? hundred? more American lives and squandering a few more billion on this idea, before EVERYONE admits the invasion and occupation was pure, unadulterated folly, so be it.

If I were the Dems I would give him all the money [rope] he asks for so that when it comes time for excuses he cannot blame the Democrats or anyone else but himself and his insane cabal of neocon advisors.

[Purple Avenger]

"The generals in charge of the war were against the surge option."

That would be the same generals who screwed it up right?

[yyy]

I don't think it was the 'generals' that decided on only 120-140,000 troops to invade and occupy a foreign country.

I think it was Donald Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of the neocon cabal that is running the White House.

The 'generals' do as they are told, even when what they are told to do is assinine and they know it is assinine. Chain of command.

It should not go unnoticed that the level of public criticism coming from the 'generals' and the military about the way this 'war' has been waged is virtually inprecedented.

[Fred Beloit]

Thanks guys for proving my points. Tired "litany of false charges". From yyy we get: "Find and destroy weapons of mass destruction..is the ONLY goal that was articulated as a reason for the pre emptive war..." Old untrue charge. Before the UN Powell and Bush articulated five or more reasons (I'm not going to look it up for you. You can do that for yourself.) Also from yyy what we might call a twofer, ie, an insult combined with a tired old false charge.: "...the balance didn't shift the way the dummy..." (he means the President) "...expected it to." But the "dummy" you refer to has degrees from two of our most respected universities (no dummies need apply) and he is demonstrably smarter than John Kerry. He had better grades and was smart enough to become President. Mr Ripper says the President is defying the American public by escalating the war. But I am a member of the public and I was disatisfied with the way he was conducting the war. If I were asked that in a poll I would have said so. But now I am more satisfied with what he is doing because he is escalating the effort. Good. I hope he escalates it even further. After all, we have to fight the enemy over there and defy the enemies within. Now I am more satistied and would say so in a poll. Same old same old, exactly as I said in my first post above. Verbosity meets verbosity. Sorry about that.

[yyy]

Bush got into Harvard as as legacy pick, not on his own intellectual merits. Please.

You can mince words and play semantic games about the rationale for invading Iraq but it the central tenant was that Iraq had to be invaded because Saddam had WMD [false], he was trying to buy weapons grade uranium [false] and that OVERALL Iraq was a threat to the United States [false] and he had to be stopped before the smoking gun was a mushroom cloud. The litany of other false secondary reasons for invading Iraq included centrifuges for weapons [false], labs under Baghdad [false], ties to Al Quada [false, see 9/11 report], and though we did not say it outright we STRONGLY intimated that Saddam was involved in planning the 9/11 attack [false].

You can try and change perceptions by pretending that the rationale for invading Iraq was not about Iraq being a military threat to the United States all you want, you might even succeed.

But history is a harder task master and the record is there for all to see, the speeches from Rummy and Cheney are all there and unless we truly descend into Orwellian madness and the records and speeches are actually changed to reflect today's rationale, then, the dummy and the neocons have to live with what they went to war on.

[yyy]

PS

You may believe that 40,000 more troops and some benchmarks are going to make a difference.

But since you also appear to have believed everything else Bush has said about Iraq that has been proven wrong, I hope you are well prepared to be disappointed again when the "surge" doesn't make an appreciable, longterm difference in the level of violence in Iraq.

Bush is simply prolonging the inevitable, he's forstalling the full on Sunni/Shia bloodbath that is coming in the hope of a miracle.

[Carl]

Jules Crittenden? Isn't that the asshat with mantits who thinks Rick (Terry Schiavo speaks to me) Santorum will end up on the Supreme Court. You sheep are too funny.

[Fred Beloit]

Ah Carl, thanks for joining the conference of the insulters. One would think that by now you folks would have realized that insults do nothing but establish you as juvenile so as to undermine your points. Let's look at one of your tired and oft refuted, but endlessly repeated, charges, Bush lied about WMD ( as activists who agree with you chant, "Bush lied, people died"). That is like saying this: Once everone thought the system we live in was earth-centric. Then it was discovered that the system we live in was sun-centered. The earth-centric people lied. Really now, you must see the asininity of this position. What causes you to mindlessly repeat this goofy charge? I know, do you?

[Tom]

But the "dummy" you refer to has degrees from two of our most respected universities (no dummies need apply) and he is demonstrably smarter than John Kerry. He had better grades and was smart enough to become President.

Fred Beloit

When I read that passage, I had to get another employee here at the company to read it again just to make sure I understood. W is demonstrably smarter than anybody? No sir, I don't believe that is true. He may have graduated from universities, but that does not mean he learned anything. He may have been in the National Guard, but that does not mean he has done anything useful. These are my opinions. Not to be disrespectful to you, but Mr Bush has been rescued from many, many challenging situations (oil, Texas Rangers, Nat'l Guard, Governor of Texas, ISG report, Fred Fielding replace Harriet Miers, etc...His percieved lack of accountability and responsibility is a huge reason the US is in the divided state we presently find ourselves. Please don't hitch your wagon to his star. You'll find yourself doing most of the work.

[yyy]

Anyone who reads the background on how we can to 'believe' that WMD exists can come away with only one conclusion:

the intelligence was massaged until it told the story the White House wanted to hear.

Sources and accounts that our own intelligence community had previously deemed as not credible or reliable or even determined were false, presto chango, became reliable and credible and true.

Sources and accounts that our allies told us, pointblank, were not reliable, credible or true, presto chango became credible and reliable.

Nevermind the idea of relying on Chalabi's freaking nephew as an uncorroborated 'eye witness' without apparently considering he may have ulterior motives to tell us what we wanted to hear.

Intelligence specialists who continued to question the validity of the WMD hypothesis were shunted aside, given the institutional punishment that all people who don't toe the line eventually receive...no assignments, no promotions, etc. etc.

It is disingenious to say that Bush legitimately believed that WMD existed based on the 'evidence' because the record CLEARLY SHOWS the evidence was manipulated and cherry picked.

They started with the end in mind: invade Iraq and they pushed, edited and massaged material until they came up with the conclusion they wanted.

[Tom]

That is like saying this: Once everone thought the system we live in was earth-centric. Then it was discovered that the system we live in was sun-centered. The earth-centric people lied. Really now, you must see the asininity of this position.

I was trying to keep up, but I couldn't. The terminal problem with your attempt at similarities is this: Comparing the knowledge and scientific wherewithall of an era 1000-1200 years ago cannot be used in the same discussion as the WMD argument. I mean you can use it, but it diminishes the power of your point. Mr Bush had the worlds foremost intelligence apparatus at his disposal (satelites, spys, treaties, allies, etc). As much as your earth-centric population was scientifically 'in the dark', Mr. Bush made huge mistakes in the full light of day. Ignorance of your universe is somewhat acceptable - considering the era in which the exploration is being done. Misjudging and 'cherry picking' intelligence to get the answers you seek, in this day and age, is probably criminal.

[Fred Beloit]

Well Mr. Tom, thank you for your honest opinion and your advice. I respectfully submit for your consideration, however, that you had better try another employee. I never wrote Bush is smarter than ANYBODY. (I said he was smarter than John Kerry, not, perhaps , a unique achievement.) You will not find that word in the subject post. I was merely defending him from the charge that Bush is a "dummy." I would also defend you against that charge because you are not a dummy either. I must also respectfully differ with your implication that the President's work has divided the country. Politics divide the country (see L.B.J. and W.J.C.). Always have, always will. Good thing to. I enjoy being divided from some of the folks I read. Don't be concerned about my wagon, sir. You needn't be. I'm a saddle man. As for the other items on your list, I don't know much about them. I have heard though that he was a good Governor. Best wishes.

[Fred Beloit]

Mr. Tom, just read your negative anaysis of my post at 4:42. You objected to it as having the problem of separation from us in time. I don't understand your objection, but let me try again. When Einstien went to school, Newtonian ideas ruled cosmology. Einstien developed e=mc sq and a lot of other ideas that showed Newton wasn't right in certain respects, though everybody else previously believed Newton. One of those people was professor Krouse. Do you think Professor krouse was a liar because he believed what everyone else believed?

[Fred Beloit]

May I add this Mr Tom. Bill Clinton believed the WMD intelligence just as Blair and Bush did. So did the leading lights of your party.

[yyy]

Tony Blair never for a nanosecond believed there were WMD in Iraq.

He went along with Bush's folly because (a) he believed it would extend England's life as a sort of a power by continuing the 'special' relationship with the USA (b) it fits his world view as a do gooder to get rid of Saddam (c) he eroneously thought that giving Bush cover by agreeing with the invasion's rationale would give him leverage over the Israeli/Palestinian issue.

I urge you again to look at the public documents and memos from his own government.

[yyy]

PS

Tony may have also simply underestimated Team Bush's level of incompetance, assuming that since failure in Iraq would be catastrophic on so many levels it was inconceivable the US would let things spiral out of control, so that history would show him to have been a true 'leader' who stood up even to his own people and did the 'right' thing.

Unfortunately for Iraq, history and Mr. Blair, the level of incompetance has been so astounding that the best we can hope for is a dictator who, beholden to the US for his life and power, will do what we want him to, and who will not kill too many of his own people along the way.

That is not success or freedom or democracy. It is a puppet dicator allowed to abuse his own people [kinda like Saddam did], but he will be 'our' puppet.

[Bill Faith]

Dan, you do have a way of drawing the idiots out from under their rocks. It's amazing some of these people even manage to wipe their own a$$3s. Of course when all you have to do is stick out your tongue and lick yourself clean. ... I excerpted and linked: http://www.smalltownveteran.net/bills_bites/2007/01/the_last_best_c.html

[Tom]

Do you think Professor krouse was a liar because he believed what everyone else believed?

Posted by: Fred Beloit

Fair enough point, sir. I do not think Krouse was a liar - he had limited knowledge based on his time in history and scientific 'knowns'. He believed this because he had no other (except maybe his intellect) basis for believing otherwise. That sir, is different than being aware of the many pieces of intelligence available to the bush administration. I'm not saying mr bush was a liar - I'm saying he used the incredibly scattered pieces of intel to kinda 'pick and choose' which elements he wanted to champion. The bits he championed, of course, worked to his advantage. BTW I'm glad your a saddle man. I couldn't live without my horses. Best to you, sir...

[seekeronos]

Let's just say that yyy is remotely right for a moment.

That the lead-up to the Iraq was predicated upon nothing but lies and schemes.

Well... it is a little bit to late to quibble over the finer points of statesmanship (such as establishing an appropriate "casus belli" or a formal declaration of war from Congress).

The salient points as I see them are:

1) We have a quasi-permanent position in the Gulf
2) We obtained this position by knocking out the weakest link, the "target of optimal opportunity", which was at the time, Iraq.

Why Iraq? It is practically at the epicentre of the Middle East. Also, attacking (what was at the time) an aggressive regime sat well with th OPEC powers that be, especially Saudi Arabia. Next, it had least risk of involving Israel directly. Syria would be quite easy to pick off militarily, but the Russkies and most other Sunni Arab (i.e. the Oil Depot) would complain rather quickly. Lastly, Israel would have certainly been drawn into that conflict.

3) What is a WMD? We know that Saddam had been in the business of making WMDs in the past. The Kurds will certainly attest to that. There is little doubt now (gotta love hindsight) that Saddam had no substantial WMD program, or if he did, he did a pretty good job of erasing evidence of the same. Hmmm. Ever consider that he dropped the stuff into the hands of Al-Q operatives, or perhaps they found themselves in Syrian or Iranian hands? Either way, it was (at the time) a plausible pretext for the invasion. Bush (or rather the NeoCons) played that card well, and most everyone - including some of you hippies - went along for the right.

4) Deposing/Trial/Execution of Dictator: Check, check, and check. Aside from all the Mookie Al fans present... one down, several dozen more insane Islamist enemies to go. Perhaps we will live to see Mookie swing from a lightpole. One can always hope.

5) Setting up a democratically elected government. Erm. Okay, if ya say so. I am inclined to believe that the average Arab on the street could not care a whit for democracy (much less a Republic) unless it was one of the Islamic kind. It's either Islamist governance with Sharia at the helm, or tribal anarchy as is currently the case in Iraq.

If there is one point that we cannot succeed in (IMO) it is #5. Democracy and freedom are completely contrary to the Islamic mind; Islamists FEAR choice. They need to have everything spelled out for them under Sharia law. Our best bet for putting them under (assuming our goal is to keep a permanent presence there to project military power into the region, as well as nip some of the oil for ourselves) is to round up and kill off the most dangerous ones (the Sadrs and the Badrs et. al.) and to keep the rest in varying states of fear of the instantaneous retribution for defying the will of their conquerors (i.e. the US and UK)

MAYBE over time, they can gradually be assimilated (in the course of decades or maybe even centuries) into a world view a bit more workable with the rest of the world.

The alternative of course, is to give up... cut and run... and build up a nuclear deterrent that far outnumbers the combined arms of the rest of the planet... and be willing to use them to fumigate the land when one of those "nations" decides to get uppity.

And dump as much money into alternative energy and setting up a kill zone along our southern border to prevent the Mexican Army and the Aztlanistas/illegal immigrants from annexing the Southwest "Aztlan" back to Mexico.