Of the four Kennedy boys–Joseph, John, Robert, and Edward–the one of whom not much was ever expected was the youngest. He was always considered to be the least serious and least intelligent, and fell into his position by default–he really wasn’t capable of doing anything except politics.
But even Ted Kennedy is smart enough to understand that Iraq is not Vietnam. Equating the number of troops in Iraq today with the number in Vietnam in 1965 is hardly a valid reason to call Iraq “Bush’s Vietnam.” Yet that’s what he does. He also claims the jihadists have the same goal that we do: The hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Somehow, I just can’t see that.
Then he calls for the one thing that would ensure Iraq is Bush’s Vietnam–he says we need to pull the troops out.
From the Boston Herald:
Just three days before the Iraqi people go to the polls to elect a new government, the Massachusetts Democrat said America must give Iraq back to its people rather than continue an occupation that parallels the failed politics of the Vietnam war.
For those of you too young to remember, we didn’t lose the war in Vietnam, we ran away. Kennedy wants us to do just that. And the politics involved have nothing in common except that the US is involved.
I cannot really understand why the leading Democrats have not, to my knowledge, come out in support of the Iraqi people by condemning the jihadists and encouraging a big voter turnout this Sunday. I know why. I just don’t understand it. They are apparently willing to see as many people die as necessary in hopes those deaths will be an embarrassment to Bush.
What is it about Bush, different from other politicians, that causes them to hate him so much that others’ lives are irrelevant? This call by Kennedy, three days before the Iraqi elections, can serve no other purpose than to encourage jihadists to murder. It is also a prelude to the certain claims by Kennedy and his ilk that the elections, once completed, are invalid and another “catastrophic failure.”
Bunker,
If you think for one minute that othe American occupation of Iraq is really going to liberate them, you need to bone up on your history. These people don’t want to be liberated. They have been fighting amongst themselves since the beginning of time. We should NEVER have attacked Iraq in the first place. Wrong country! OOPS!. And trust me, Bush doesn’t need deaths to embaress himself. He manages to do that ALL by himself daily.
example:
President Bush told the New York Times that “he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq’s first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain as helpers, not as occupiers.”
Our troops are going to be “helpers”. How sweet! I also think it is ironic that Bush will eagerly listen to the newly elected (laughable) leaders, while ignoring the requests of half of the American people.
Comment by Mary — January 28, 2005 @ 1:32 pm
Mary,
Thank you for parroting the Democrats’ racist view that Middle Eastern folks just aren’t ready for democracy and freedom. You provide an excellent example of the irrational hatred that Bunker describes. Facts aren’t important, and lives aren’t important, as long as you get to hate the President.
Comment by UML Guy — January 28, 2005 @ 2:27 pm
I don’t fully understand your reasoning behind why American troops shouldn’t be in Iraq. Bush made it very clear in the days after September 11 that he was going after terrorists, and not even the liberal media negated the fact that this needed to happen. He made it clear that the war on terrorism would begin in Afghanistan and branch out from there. His intentions were never unclear. By all intents and purposes Saddam Hussein was/is a terrorist; because someone happens to be in power over a state doesn’t mean that they can do as they please to their people, and occupiers of the land they control. With or without WMD Hussein was a killer and the Iraqi people were in fear of their every move. Fear that goes beyond the normal fighting of peoples in civil war.
You also say Bush manages to embaress himself by saying that our troops are going to be “helpers.” How does that constitute embarassment? Is it the simplicity of such a word? Without many wars of our own our military has been helpers in several countries trying to help out those attempting to get back on their feet or stand for the very first time. Do you think other presidents have been embarassed at sending and allowing our military to be “helpers?” Are you against all of those times too, or simply because Bush answered a question with a simple word that isn’t often used by those in Washington or in the media. Would the term ‘peace keeper’ used by the UN or a former president make you feel better?
Why do you find it necessary to laugh at the leaders of a country trying to come together? It’s funny that Iraq should have the chance at having a government that doesn’t have a mass murderer as a leader? These leaders that will be elected are ‘laughable’ because they not only risk every day of their lives as well as their dearest friends and family by taking a chance to step up and help rebuild Iraq? I don’t find anything funny or laughable at anyone who tries to step up and do a decent thing for their country while risking their lives.
The MSM and the liberal democrats want to see Bush fail; at any cost, and that is how the news gets reported to that ‘half of the American people’. That would almost be comedic; if it wasn’t terrifying to know that leaders in our country would rather see troops killed and a foreign government fail at its chance of democracy so that their own Commander in Chief could be an embarrasment and a failure to our country.
Comment by Regina — January 28, 2005 @ 2:30 pm
While listening to the dimmest of the Kennedys earlier today, I decided that I had to write something. But, coming here first, I find it has already been done quite well. Then Mary just proves the point further, after which Regina does a marvelous job of clarifying things and setting the record straight.
Comment by Cerberus — January 28, 2005 @ 3:30 pm
The Face of Today’s Democratic Party
Listening to Senator Kennedy’s recent comments regarding withdrawing troops from Iraq, and hearing him call them part of the problem, nearly caused me to have a seizure while driving.
Trackback by Cerberus Blog — January 28, 2005 @ 3:53 pm
Regina,
Well said. That’s my sweet daughter-in-law!
Comment by Bunker — January 28, 2005 @ 5:07 pm
Hmmm, I don’t know where to begin. Let’s start with Bush’s 9/11 thinking. Absolutely we have to go after “the” terrorist who executed the horror that happened that day. I’m still waiting for us to “go after” him. Instead we invade Iraq. Okay, Saddam is an asshole who likes to terrorize, but what about the thousands of people in Uganda who are butchered everyday? Why is their plight less important? Or the plight of many, many people all over the world, because they didn’t kill Americans? Saddam had NO weapons of mass destruction. Bush was told this and he decided to go anyway. We send our young people over there with limited resources, limited training. They are being killed by people who have the same beliefs people had 2500 years ago. Did Bush or any other President care about the human rights violations against women in that country? There will ALWAYS be another Saddam.
They are lined up waiting to kill anything that smells of democracy.
Did Bush or any other President care about the human rights violations against women in that country? No, they still don’t. Bush cares about approval ratings. I’m sorry, I don’t like the guy. I don’t think he has the gray matter needed to run this country. I didn’t like Kerry either. Call me a liberal, or anything you want. I don’t like war of any kind. I know as “right wingers”, you don’t listen to anything but Fox, Hannity and O’Brien (Don’t pretend like that isn’t true), but I urge to read Carmen Bin Laden’s book “Inside the Kingdom” she was the sister-in-law of Osama. It is very interesting and a quick read.
Finally, thank you for letting me say what I need to say!
Beware of North Korea
Comment by Mary — January 29, 2005 @ 9:56 pm
Absolutely we have to go after “the” terrorist who executed the horror that happened that day. I’m still waiting for us to “go after” him. Instead we invade Iraq.
Obviously you listen with a selective ear. Bush made it very clear–if you paid attention–that we will go after terrorists and the countries that harbor them. He didn’t say al-Queda, he said terrorists. All of them. By the way, we didn’t ignore al-Queda and go after Saddam. We are still working the mountains in Afghanistan. And tanks don’t operate very well in that environment, as the Soviets discovered.
We send our young people over there with limited resources, limited training. They are being killed by people who have the same beliefs people had 2500 years ago.
Actually, Muhammed was born in 570AD. So, you’re only off by a thousand years. And by what measure do you, personally, draw a conclusion about our troops’ equipment and training? Obviously you bought into the idea that their vehicles aren’t armored, and that they don’t have personal body armor when, in fact, neither assertion is true. Nor was it ever. When I went to Kuwait nearly two years ago I was issued body armor, as was everyone else.
Bush cares about approval ratings.
I know. That’s why he took huge political risks in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I think that’s probably why he when crying to Kofi Annan and Jacques Chiraq when they didn’t approve.
I know as “right wingers”, you don’t listen to anything but Fox, Hannity and O’Brien (Don’t pretend like that isn’t true)
I don’t have to pretend. I don’t. Who is O’Brien, anyway? Have you ever listened to any of them?
And I apologize for Dubya not being as concerned about women as Clinton. But he actually has a marriage.
This could go on and on, but let me just offer one suggestion–Write to Kofi Annan and insist the UN take care of the problems with genocide in Africa and see what kind of response you get. A lot of talk happens in the other nations of the world. If one-tenth of them took an interest in doing anything, the others would quit killing their own people.
Comment by Bunker — January 30, 2005 @ 5:27 am
Mary
…thank you for letting me say what I needed to say
I’m sure you needed to say what you said – at length! And what you needed to say told us a lot about you. But I’m not sure that it added much to the debate about what to do about terrorism. Don’t worry so much, it’s coming along nicely. And only one of those blue fingers being held up to the camera by happy Iraqis was meant for you, so don’t take it all so personally.
Comment by Frank P — January 31, 2005 @ 7:53 pm