Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Iraq Is Becoming Another Vietnam" by Bob Johnson
Free Republic Network ^ | 5-10-04 | Bob Johnson

Posted on 05/09/2004 9:40:22 AM PDT by Bob J

In their unholy war for power, liberals and Democrats along with their comrades in the media have begun the propaganda drumbeat to convince voters that Iraq is becoming this generations twenty-first century Vietnam.

If Iraq becomes another Vietnam, it won’t be for reasons proffered from the left. Vietnam may have been a low point in American history but it wasn’t a military failure, our troops won every major battle. The war was lost when the left successfully convinced the American public it wasn’t worth fighting, the cost was too high, and more importantly, our military was corrupt and could not be trusted to conduct operations in an acceptable manner. In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's “Vietnam Veterans Against the War”, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. Buoying enemy support while sapping the will of the American people, the left extended the Vietnam war resulting in significant additional loss of Vietnamese and American lives and the eventual bug out by America. Our military, which should have returned as defending heroes bringing democracy to the oppressed people of the world, were spat upon and called baby killers. Thank you J.F. Kerry, a suitable if not ignominious Democrat Presidential candidate.

The left used the excuse of Vietnam (a war initiated and escalated by Democrats) as a pretext for attacking and defeating the sitting Republican President, Richard Nixon. Watergate may have been the final straw that precipitated Nixon’s capitulation, but there is little doubt his saddle bags were full of ‘Nam hay when that pony’s spine snapped. The peace agreement aside, he was squarely in the sites of every commusocialist, sandal and beads flower child and sleazy politician jumping on their bandwagon to score a few points in the next popularity poll.

It begins as a drip but will soon turn into a torrent. Using their dominance and control of the media, the left has xeroxed their strategy against Nixon and is targeting Bush, conservatives and our military. Dozens of articles in major newspapers, speeches by democrat leaders and media exposé’s are questioning the “cost” of Iraq and America’s ability to shoulder that burden. Tabloid-like congressional investigations, in a time of war, ruthlessly attack our leaders flinging outrageous innuendo of corruption and immorality. Now, sensationalized revelations of fraternity pranks by military police against Muslim detainees will shamelessly be used by the left as evidence our military does not have the moral high ground to conduct this engagement.

The political left is utterly contemptible. Their sworn if not patriotic duty to govern in America’s best interests is as foreign to them as truth. To satiate their hatred for George Bush and consuming lust for power they will create out of sackcloth another Vietnam for this country and in the process crush American initiative, respect and honor while unnecessarily sacrificing additional American lives. Again.

Bob Johnson is a Board member of the Free Republic Network and President of RIGHTALK, America’s conservative radio Townhall.


TOPICS: Free Republic
KEYWORDS: frncc; iraq; johnson; kerry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

1 posted on 05/09/2004 9:40:22 AM PDT by Bob J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bob J
BFL responses.
2 posted on 05/09/2004 9:44:55 AM PDT by dts32041 ("Liberty is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity" George W Bush 28 Jan 2003)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Bob J
A good summary of why I find the actions of quite a few on the left to be treasonous.
4 posted on 05/09/2004 9:48:07 AM PDT by thoughtomator (yesterday Kabul, today Baghdad, tomorrow Damascus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan; Excuse_My_Bellicosity
ping
5 posted on 05/09/2004 9:48:50 AM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife (Personality can open doors, but only character can keep them open. --Elmer G. Letterman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Bob J
Nice. said good.
7 posted on 05/09/2004 9:51:24 AM PDT by moodyskeptic (weekend warrior in the culture war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Good stuff, Bob J. Thanks.
8 posted on 05/09/2004 9:52:26 AM PDT by MizSterious (First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dts32041
BFL?
9 posted on 05/09/2004 9:55:51 AM PDT by Bob J (freerepublic.net/ radiofreerepublic.com/rightalk.com...check them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Thank you for articulating things I have been fuming about.
10 posted on 05/09/2004 9:58:55 AM PDT by abner (FREE THE MIRANDA MEMOS! http://www.intelmemo.com or http://www.wintersoldier.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Bob I was talking to my wife this morning about this same issue. There were three things that caused us to lose Vietnam, stupid press,stupid politicians, and the stupid people who believed both of the above.We are headed for the same fate,because of the same things now,stupid politicians trying to run the war from washington,stupid press that hates America and the stupid people who pay attention to both of them.
11 posted on 05/09/2004 10:00:15 AM PDT by cksharks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
"The war was lost when the left successfully convinced the American public it wasn’t worth fighting, the cost was too high, and more importantly, our military was corrupt and could not be trusted to conduct operations in an acceptable manner. "

Nonsense.

The reason we lost Viet Nam is because we had a spineless leadership that refused to commit to victory.

That's the difference between Johnson (may he roast in hell) and Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

DemocRATs in the White House is a violation of national security and should not be allowed.

12 posted on 05/09/2004 10:01:23 AM PDT by evad ("Such an enemy cannot be deterred, detained, appeased, or negotiated with. It can only be destroyed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cksharks
Agreed, although I'm not sure the press nor democrats are stupid. Calculating and treasonous, but not stupid. As far as the American people who believed them, they were (as they are are now) subject to a media propaganda blitzkrieg of 80%/20% favoring the left. Yes, they are falling for it but in my mind they are more ignorant and lazy.
13 posted on 05/09/2004 10:10:53 AM PDT by Bob J (freerepublic.net/ radiofreerepublic.com/rightalk.com...check them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: evad
The reason we lost Viet Nam is because we had a spineless leadership that refused to commit to victory.

And why had they become spineless?

14 posted on 05/09/2004 10:11:26 AM PDT by Bob J (freerepublic.net/ radiofreerepublic.com/rightalk.com...check them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
The problem for the media is it ain't working. It did not work against Nixon either. So they attacked Nixon as a crook. They made it stick because nixon was not a likable person. Nixon always won as the better of two bad choices.

When a politician is not liked, he can be attacked and destroyed. But it is next to impossible to attack a likable politician and destroy him. I give you Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman and Franklin Delano Roosevelt as examples.

In real terms selling missiles to the Iranians who has just held our people hostage had to be worse than spying on Democrats in their Watergate office. The media thought they had Reagan but it did not stick. We thought we had Clinton but the public did not care.. They liked Clinton and defended the indefensible. The same was true of HST. After all we found traitors in his state department at the height of the Cold War, Dewey could not beat him. The depression got worse under FDR but it did not hurt FDR at the polls. The people liked FDR and attacks failed. Attacks only caused the people to defend him.

This time for the second time there is talk radio and the Internet to get the truth to people. But it will make no difference. The Media can't hurt a politician the public likes and trusts.

A majority of the people like Duya and the people that work for him. The public likes Rummy, Condi, and Powell. The public does not want Rummy fired. They like him and they won't believe charges made against him.

When politicians the public likes are attacked the public gets angry at the attacker.. not those attacked. The media never figures it out. They just think they have to find an issue that will stick.

Attacking someone a person likes and respects is dumb. It just makes that person angry with the attacker. To get likable politician, the opponent has to be nice while offering better solutions to the problem. The desired reaction is, "I like X but Y seems to be a nice guy with better solutions."

Attacking will not work. An opponent can't even claim to be better. He must offer ideas that the public thinks is better and be as likable as the candidate he is trying to unseat. Smart Democrats know it. That is why they think Kerry is toast. He is attacking the unattackable.

15 posted on 05/09/2004 10:17:58 AM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
And why had they become spineless?

Hmmm...might as well ask me why a squid is a squid.

I assume that spineless and democRAT liberal go hand in hand. They are simply incapable of doing the right thing, unlike some of the older day democrats.

I suppose you could also say that they became spineless because they were corrupt but being corrupt and spineless are not necessarily mutually inclusive.

16 posted on 05/09/2004 10:20:33 AM PDT by evad ("Such an enemy cannot be deterred, detained, appeased, or negotiated with. It can only be destroyed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Well written. The lesson of Viet Nam is, don't fight your enemies at the gates of Saigon, fight them at the gates of Hanoi. Make their leadership wonder if they are going to wake up in the morning.

If we abandon the fight, and forget why we need to be there, if we convince ourselves that it is unwinnable even while we are winning it, if we walk away from the sacrifice of our soldiers simply because Americans don't have the ability to focus on a serious matter, and don't have the heart for a serious fight, Iraq will become Viet Nam.

The press and the left, and sadly the DNC, are doing everything they can to undermine the will to continue the fight. It is shameful. Viet Nam rotted under communist rule for 30 years thanks to them. Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese were executed, millions of Cambodians executed, thousands of Hmong killed, thanks to them. If we listen to them now, the Iraqi Baath will return to power under UN sponsorship. They will change their name, but it will be the same cast of characters.
17 posted on 05/09/2004 10:23:20 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Well stated Bob. The one difference I note is that with Viet Nam we were in a war against communism. The left who had supported communism from the 40s through the McCarthy era successfully infiltrated the mainstream of the Democrat party forcing it to take a strong stand in the Viet Nam scenario.

Today, while the Democrats do have the anti-war crowd in their camp, they do not have a disciplined and committed cadre of die hard idealogues similar to the communists and their sympathizers who ran rampant until Ronald Reagan took charge. I see today's left as a hodge-podge of causes from environmentalism to multi-culturalism, but until they can solidify into a viable political philosophy, they will likely not become the force for evil that personified the communist movement in the 50s and 60s.

That may be wishful thinking on my part because, as I so often have to reflect, the Democrats never met an anti-American left wing philosophy they did not embrace.

18 posted on 05/09/2004 10:30:51 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
I agree with your premise that it is harder to make stink bombs stick to a likeable politician, but that is the strategy of the left...make the politician unlikeable. All President's start out likeable, that's why the people elect them. Even Nixon had high ratings throughout most of his presidency. Things changed for Nixon and things can change for Bush if the left media has it's way.

I am little confused though. In your first couple of lines, you state the media propaganda campaign didn't work against Nixon, I assume (due to your premise) because he was "likeable". You then state they attacked him as a crook and it stuck because he was then "unlikeable". It appears to me the media took a likeable President and under their withering attacks, made him unlikeable. In other words, their strategy did work.
19 posted on 05/09/2004 10:31:55 AM PDT by Bob J (freerepublic.net/ radiofreerepublic.com/rightalk.com...check them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: evad
IMHO, they became spineless because the propaganda campaign started working. As the Vietnam war became unpopular, any politician supporting it was inevitably tied to whatever the left branded it to be. A few examples...

Against Affirmative Action ---> You are a racist.
Against Prescription Drugs for Seniors ---> You want to throw old people out in the street.
Against School Lunch ---> You want to starve children to death.

As long as the left holds the instruments of information dissemination in their hands, we will always be pushing that boulder up a hill.

20 posted on 05/09/2004 10:36:27 AM PDT by Bob J (freerepublic.net/ radiofreerepublic.com/rightalk.com...check them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: marron
Vietnam ushered in forty years of leftist control of two branches of our government, the legislature and the judiciary. The only reasons the pubs were able to hang on to most of the presidency was the Soviet threat. Carter won because he wasn't Nixon and Clinton won because he ran as a moderate and had good hair.



21 posted on 05/09/2004 10:41:54 AM PDT by Bob J (freerepublic.net/ radiofreerepublic.com/rightalk.com...check them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
"...The problem for the media is it ain't working..."

Ex-f'n-actly!

We don't have to listen to old, pompous windbag Walter Cronkite schelp his lefty crap anymore. No one thinks of TV, the press media as neutral unbiased observers anymore.

22 posted on 05/09/2004 10:43:09 AM PDT by Leisler (The Democrats. The nation's oldest organized crime family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
The behavior of the media, the Democrat party and many RINO's is incomprehensable. Most of the dem hacks have issued statements that are seditous and serve no purpose other than lend aid to our enemies in time of war.

The loonies have taken over the DNC and have decided to ally with the Arab/Islamic cause in order to regain power in 2004. Socialism is making an all-out offensive to snuff out conservative beliefs once and forever.

23 posted on 05/09/2004 10:44:10 AM PDT by johnny7 ( C'mon... put'm up... put'm up! -The Cowardly Lion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
I don't see much difference between the communists and Islamists. Today, we have communists posing as moderates. They obviously learned Americans don't like them so they'll perform a little sleight of hand to gain power.
24 posted on 05/09/2004 10:44:38 AM PDT by Bob J (freerepublic.net/ radiofreerepublic.com/rightalk.com...check them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
No one thinks of TV, the press media as neutral unbiased observers anymore.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

25 posted on 05/09/2004 10:45:31 AM PDT by Bob J (freerepublic.net/ radiofreerepublic.com/rightalk.com...check them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: johnny7
The behavior of the media, the Democrat party and many RINO's is incomprehensable.

It's very comprehensible. They will use lies about Iraq and the war on terror to vault them to power.

26 posted on 05/09/2004 10:46:55 AM PDT by Bob J (freerepublic.net/ radiofreerepublic.com/rightalk.com...check them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
[ "Iraq Is Becoming Another Vietnam"]

Its true.
But Vietnam was a war screwed completely up by democrats. Same here. So was Korea. When the goin gets hard, Democrats turn "French". Only reason for any political successes are when republicans cajole or "trick" democrats into staying just a little longer. But that was when republicans were not neocons(ex-democrats). For you can take the democrat from the party but its almost impossible to remove the democrat from the democrat.

All you end up with is a donkey with a big horn glued on its NOSE(RINO) trying to bray like an elephant. American politics has become donkeyfied trumpeting democracy. Politiical Elephants are almost exinct.
(/tusk)

27 posted on 05/09/2004 11:02:41 AM PDT by hosepipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J; diotima; Bernard Marx; pacpam; hoppity; MayflowerMadam; capitan_refugio; Kviteseid; ...
Excellent commentary - I hope you sent this in to the LA Slimes. Diotima, can you ping all chapter leaders! Ventura County Freepers! This thread was written by our fearless leader of FRN.
28 posted on 05/09/2004 11:04:58 AM PDT by Rabid Dog (Join your FreeRepublic Chapter and make a difference!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Even the media organ professional journals are full of articles on press political bias. Also you have to note that the the vast majority of Americans have

1. Never read a single non-fiction book.
2. Do not read newspapers. And of those that do, half only read the sports.
3. Do not watch television news shows, and if they do, are watching less liberal shows and more toward Fox.

I was with a very well educated, conservative and from a wealth family, friend. We were watching the Sunday talking heads and he was very upset with them, and concerned with the affect on Bush. I told him that the Sunday shows had less viewers than a British car wax infomercial at 3 in the morning and anyways was only watched by a incestuous cabal of policy wonks.
29 posted on 05/09/2004 11:07:48 AM PDT by Leisler (The Democrats. The nation's oldest organized crime family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
I was only questioning your use of the phrase "No one...". I do believe some Americans view coverage as leaning one way or the other, whether it is CNN or Foxnews. The problem is they still watch Dan, Tom and Peter regardless of this notion.

For the masses, if you state lie often enough, it becomes the truth...even if one may consider it a lie.
30 posted on 05/09/2004 11:14:10 AM PDT by Bob J (freerepublic.net/ radiofreerepublic.com/rightalk.com...check them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: cksharks
Actually it is a lot worse now. Back then, there were few politicians who took a public stand against the Vietnam War - and the ones that did were not very popular, at least with the "silent majority" that Nixon claimed. Most protesters were college students, or our university professors, or organizations like the Quakers, quite legitimate opposition, as the war was being prosecuted in a horrible way, bleeding the late boomer generation away for a standoff, no intent to win. Let the young die seemed to be the will of Washington.

An army is not a very good neighbor - over time, even the most welcoming of the liberated populace will become tired of the corruption brought on by an occupying military force. Soldires are not police, not even as tolerant as rude "cops". They will shoot you dead without concerns of civil rights, or legal consequence, or any understanding of custom. A successful war must achieve victory as quickly as possible, with full commitment by the nation, and use of any weapon in the arsenal to overcome the enemy, and every protection afforded to the soldier in the field, and the sympathetic population. After victory, then establish a lawful, endemic police force, and separate the military force from the population.

Vietnam was prosecuted in an awful way. The Iraq war appears to be being prosecuted in a way which could be successful, if not derailed by the traitorous, self-serving leaches in this country.

31 posted on 05/09/2004 11:24:01 AM PDT by GregoryFul (who ya gonna call?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
I think we should remind the Left that Vietnam was their war and if a failure....theirs! It was also a great example of failure in the Democrat leadership over the military and our foreign affairs.

It took a Republican....Nixon to get us out of the quagmire.
32 posted on 05/09/2004 11:34:54 AM PDT by TheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
=== And why had they become spineless?

Probably too many mixed interests.

For example, there are the strategically inexplicable wartime actions of Kissinger and and his aide-de-camp Haig (of Nixon's Narcotics Council).

I find their ceasing overflights of Burmese poppy fields and the CIA's cranking of the Golden Triangle OUT of China perplexing to say the least. Something doesn't add up. For I suspect that the connection between drug profits and the Soviet/Chicom terror network (as launched fullforce from the 1967 Tri-Continental Conference in Havana) were understood from the get-go. Opium Wars being nothing particularly new on the face of the earth.

Just like ill-timed public apologies by the President, actions like these by those at the head of our agencies and critical task forces tend to muddy the waters and send the wrong messages to exactly the wrong people.
33 posted on 05/09/2004 11:35:08 AM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
I don't see much difference between the communists and Islamists. Today, we have communists posing as moderates. They obviously learned Americans don't like them so they'll perform a little sleight of hand to gain power

Yes, I would never turn my back on them. The main difference, however, is that from the 40s to the 60s and 70s, the communists had infiltrated our society, our government, our schools, many churches, and the Democrat party. So far, the Islamists of today have not achieved any where near that kind of acceptance here in this country. True, they would love to get to where the communists were, but their form of ideology is not nearly as acceptable to Americans as the communist (socialist) ideology was then, and which, I fear, seems to be making a comeback.

34 posted on 05/09/2004 11:35:54 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Well done, Bob.
35 posted on 05/09/2004 11:39:20 AM PDT by doug from upland (Don't wait until it is too late to stop Hillary -- do something today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Excellent summary Bob!
36 posted on 05/09/2004 11:49:40 AM PDT by b4its2late (Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Socially and economically, I'm pretty well entrenched it the masses, and I think in a gut way they are on to the leftist lies. Anyways, just think of the braying about the economy, the lack of jobs, the prisoners in Cuba, Afghanistan going to be our Vietnam, and on and on and on that the enemy have thrown at Bush and tried to scare people. Not one has stuck, not one has worked. Heck the working stiffs I meet thought the Iraqis/Muslims/Arabs take your pick deserved a little slapping around. So, let the usual suspects of the media, EU weenies etc do their same old dance, it isn't going to matter, George doesn't care what they think. Matter of fact the goofs have been so wrong, so often for the last 4 years, I am almost giddy about the prospects for Iraq.
37 posted on 05/09/2004 11:49:40 AM PDT by Leisler (The Democrats. The nation's oldest organized crime family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
And now they've got pictures.

To coin a phrase, just damn.

38 posted on 05/09/2004 11:55:15 AM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Great analysis!

As I have stated before. I would have happily suffered the temporary loss of Constitutional rights to save the lives of tens of thousands of servicemen and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese.

Had the 1968 Tet offensive been reported factually and the Nation encouraged to rally behind our troops rather than abandon them it is quite possible IMO that their overwhelming victories could have forced peace by 1970. It's even possible that we would have continued material support of South Vietnam and helped them overcome the inevitable peace agreement violations by the Communists after most of the allied troops went home.

There is less campus unrest and no draft today. Otherwise it is exactly the same as the late 1960s and early 70s. Are we headed to the same fate? This war is for everything.

I suppose the recent "uprising" in Iraq was suppose to signal our press that it was the Islamists' Tet offensive, go with it! LBJ was visibly shaken and abandoned the troops way back then. As President he knew the truth about Tet but as a politician he was shaken because he knew the public's press-inspired impression was the end of him.

Now we have a "My Lai" in the judgment of the press and dem Rats. Maybe the Rats can make the "cover-up" into a Watergate. They'll try hard with a lot of help.

President Bush's reactions so far are weak IMO. Yet the press and dem Rats demand more kowtowing. Is this the beginning of the end of our sovereignty? Are our America's enemies within winning all the marbles this time?

Isn't it time we encourage the President to stop them cold? As in room temperature, if necessary. How serious does it have to get?

39 posted on 05/09/2004 12:05:16 PM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (Benedict Arnold was a hero for both sides in the same war, too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cksharks
Bob I was talking to my wife this morning about this same issue. There were three things that caused us to lose Vietnam, stupid press,stupid politicians, and the stupid people who believed both of the above.

Right! But you forgot one more. It was also micro managed by the politicians in Washington instead of letting the battlefield generals fight and win the war.

Unfortunatley, I see a little of the same thing happening now. The Marines were ready to kick ass in Fallujah and the Army is ready to take care of Sadr in Najaf. In both cases, they are still playing political games back in Washington. Power means nothing if you do not have the will to use it. I don't think Sistani is ever going to come right out and say take care of this problem. Even he knows it has to be done. But if they do finally take this Sadr clown out, Sistani will squawk like hell for the locals while giving a wink and a nod in private. Just MHO.

40 posted on 05/09/2004 12:38:54 PM PDT by navyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: navyblue
There were three things that caused us to lose Vietnam, stupid press,stupid politicians, and the stupid people who believed both of the above.

Right. And we're about five more years and perhaps 40,000 casualties away from Vietnam II. If things are no further along by that time, I'll consider the comparison valid.

41 posted on 05/09/2004 12:41:48 PM PDT by Euro-American Scum (A poverty-stricken middle class must be a disarmed middle class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
All President's start out likable, that's why the people elect them

That is not true. Nixon was not liked at all, and neither was Lyndon Johnson. The public did not like Goldwater. That is why they elected LBJ. They disliked Goldwater a lot. The same is true of Nixon and HHH. The center thought HHH was a wimp. They did not like Nixon, but they could not stomach the wimpy HHH.

There was a lot of fear that Republicans would not vote for Ike in 1952. Ike was a former Democrat. Truman had offered to help Ike get the Democratic nomination in 1952 if Ike would run as a Democrat. The far right loved the Truman bashing Nixon for his attacks on the state department's Alger Hiss. Ike knew the center did not like Nixon any more than they liked McCarthy. Ike needed help with the far right and Nixon got it for him. No one thought Nixon was likable.

The left and the media could not get Nixon at the polls on the war issue in 1972. They tried hard in 1972 to defeat Nixon with the war. The right and center did not believe the attacks on Nixon based on the war were valid. They voted for him. While the center and moderates did not like Nixon, they really feared McGovern would weaken us enough so we would lose the cold war. Nixon won in 1972 because the swing voters feared McGovern... not because they liked Nixon.

The Watergate break-in was on June 17th 1972. Almost 5 months before the 1972 election. It made no news at all until Nixon won the biggest victory at the polls in the 20th century. The media and left felt that Viet Nam would take Nixon down as it had LBJ. It did not work.

To get Nixon they had to turn the attack from Nixon's war tactics, to his honesty. Attacks on honesty and truthfulness rang true against Richard (Tricky Dick) Nixon. The name Tricky Dick was given to Nixon when he first ran for VP with Ike in 1952... 14 years before he became President. Lying was something the public would not tolerate from a disliked Nixon. Consider the public did tolerate lying from a Bill Clinton. They liked Bill they did not like Dick. It is that simple.

After 8 years of Ike's peace and prosperity Nixon should have done to JFK in 1960 what Bush 41 did to Dukakis in 1988. The term Mass. liberal should have taken JFK out. But Nixon was not likable and JFK was. JFK won an election he should not have won. Just as Bush 43 won an election he should not have won over Gore. The public liked JFK and they like Dubya. They did not like Nixon and they do not like Gore.

However the right and center supported pro war stance in the VietNam war. The left did not support LBJ's pro war stance in the same war. They left didn't support Nixon either. Republicans can win without the left. No Democrat can.

Only after Nixon's 1972 victory did the Democrats use Watergate to remove Nixon from office. To remove Nixon required that the Republicans turn on Nixon. Howard Baker lead that charge. Had Nixon been a likable person he would have survived Watergate as Clinton Survived Monica and a host of other charges. Baker had aspirations to be president. He tried hard in 1980... Baker spent almost $100,000 dollars a vote in New Hampshire in 1980.

LBJ was taken down by the Vietnam war. The left liked his great Society but hated him and his war. It was LBJ's Democratic base that went away from him. They did not like him and refused to support his war. That is why LBJ did not run for re-election.

Likability explains how a president can retain support when he does something the center does not like. The center and right did not disagree with Nixon on Vietnam.. When the war was over, they got him on an effort to spy on Democrats. The center would not buy it.

The center bought into Clinton because they liked him. They will buy into Bush for the same reason.

42 posted on 05/09/2004 12:44:52 PM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Nicely said.
43 posted on 05/09/2004 1:00:38 PM PDT by Scutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Afghanistan also brought them to say it was turning into another Vietnam. They are trying their damndest to destroy our country's efforts in Iraq.
44 posted on 05/09/2004 2:26:23 PM PDT by bushfamfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Geez, Bob J.

Declaring the left the winner already? Scripting the path they should follow? No faith in Bush or his crew?

Swill.

45 posted on 05/09/2004 2:30:13 PM PDT by Glenn (The two keys to character: 1) Learn how to keep a secret. 2) ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
The war was lost when the left successfully convinced the American public it wasn’t worth fighting, the cost was too high, and more importantly, our military was corrupt and could not be trusted to conduct operations in an acceptable manner.

I don't buy the broad-brush analysis in bold. Maybe you could be more specific?

46 posted on 05/09/2004 2:39:23 PM PDT by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: evad
RE: Nonsense. The reason we lost Viet Nam is because we had a spineless leadership that refused to commit to victory.

I kinda agree. We were the W.W. II "greatest generation" or closely associated with it (dependents) in those days. Bob J's statement is correct with qualifiers, IMO.

Your statement about the leadership is correct, also The massive retaliation of the 1950s had given way to measured response.

You may remember Scotty Reston. His writings trace our decision to confront "wars of liberation" in Vietnam to Kennedy's humiliation by Khrushchev in Vienna (1961). By 1963 the US has 16,000 servicemen in Vietnam. Much too timid considering the threat, like Cuba and Kennedy's Bay of Pigs. Ike would have done it right.

Though Korea showed us that wars will be "limited" nevertheless we expected victory and our forces delivered defeating the Chi-coms. Mao wanted desperately to show the world that he could defeat the entire U.S. Eighth Army. To wit, "Mao Telegram to Stalin re the Decision to Send ... troops to annihilate the American troops in Korea, principally the Eighth Army. . . ."

The point is, the public was caught flat footed, IMO. On the surface, i.e., in the mainstream press, "the American public [believed] it wasn't worth fighting." That's all that was being reported especially on TV "news" and from 1968 on.

I am absolutely convinced that most Americans were just dumb in the sense that they were silenced. We were hoodwinked. We had never lost a war. Americans, especially Washington and our press, had never betrayed our military. It wasn't happening. It'll be okay? But politicians heard only the press and the "anti-war" demonstrators.

The leftist pig vomit fooled us once. Shame on them.

47 posted on 05/09/2004 3:10:28 PM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (Benedict Arnold was a hero for both sides in the same war, too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's “Vietnam Veterans Against the War”, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S.

I agree with much of your post re the left, but not regarding the prosecution of the War in Vietnam. I think Gen. Giap was full of crap. The North Vietnamese were not ready to surrender, and the South Vietnamese leadership was so corrupt, that it could not inspire the people to kill and die for it. The ARVN was a second-rate force. And while Gen. Westmoreland was and is a good and decent man, his methods were wrong for the war we were in. He was fighting a European-style war with big units and conventional tactics. He needed to rely more on smaller, more agile units and unconventional tactics (e.g., special forces), the way we eventually did, too late, under Gen. Abrams, and a generation later, in Afghanistan. Westy against the communists was like the redcoats against our own irregulars.

48 posted on 05/09/2004 3:15:41 PM PDT by mrustow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
The problem for the media is it ain't working. It did not work against Nixon either. So they attacked Nixon as a crook. They made it stick because nixon was not a likable person. Nixon always won as the better of two bad choices. When a politician is not liked, he can be attacked and destroyed. But it is next to impossible to attack a likable politician and destroy him. I give you Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman and Franklin Delano Roosevelt as examples.

In real terms selling missiles to the Iranians who has just held our people hostage had to be worse than spying on Democrats in their Watergate office. The media thought they had Reagan but it did not stick. We thought we had Clinton but the public did not care.. They liked Clinton and defended the indefensible. The same was true of HST. After all we found traitors in his state department at the height of the Cold War, Dewey could not beat him. The depression got worse under FDR but it did not hurt FDR at the polls. The people liked FDR and attacks failed. Attacks only caused the people to defend him.

This time for the second time there is talk radio and the Internet to get the truth to people. But it will make no difference. The Media can't hurt a politician the public likes and trusts.

A majority of the people like Duya and the people that work for him. The public likes Rummy, Condi, and Powell. The public does not want Rummy fired. They like him and they won't believe charges made against him.

When politicians the public likes are attacked the public gets angry at the attacker.. not those attacked. The media never figures it out. They just think they have to find an issue that will stick.

Attacking someone a person likes and respects is dumb. It just makes that person angry with the attacker. To get likable politician, the opponent has to be nice while offering better solutions to the problem. The desired reaction is, "I like X but Y seems to be a nice guy with better solutions."

Attacking will not work. An opponent can't even claim to be better. He must offer ideas that the public thinks is better and be as likable as the candidate he is trying to unseat. Smart Democrats know it. That is why they think Kerry is toast. He is attacking the unattackable.

I didn't excerpt your post, because my name is not quidnunc.... Just kidding -- it's brilliant. Your post explains why the traitors' own polls show 69% of the people supporting Rummy, while only 20% desire his ouster. And if those are the traitors' numbers, you can just imagine what the REAL numbers are!

49 posted on 05/09/2004 3:22:51 PM PDT by mrustow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dts32041
Great Post.
50 posted on 05/09/2004 3:45:52 PM PDT by dix (Remember the Alamo, and God bless Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson