May 29 2006

To Die For Nothing

Published by at 9:39 am under All General Discussions,Iraq

Mark Coffey has a post on the despicable actions of Kissenger and Nixon who, apparently, said they could allow communist take over of Vietnam if we could get our troops out.  After all those deaths what those people died for was ‘expediency’:

This latest revelation only adds to a body of evidence that begins with the overtures made by the Nixon campaign during the 1968 election, when the South Vietnamese were assured they would get a better shake under the Republicans, and promptly withdrew from the Paris Peace Talks in a self-fulfulling policy of failure.

More than the ‘two-bit burglary’ of Watergate, and its subsequent revelations of constitutional abuses in the name of paranoia, the most shameful legacy of the Nixon Administration is the thousands of additional names that were added to the Vietnam Memorial in an effort to get right back where we started in 1968.

As Mark points out, the Bush doctrine in Iraq is one of optimistic idealism.  The opposite of Nixon’s pessimistic cynicism.  What is identical to Nixon’s cynicism is the left’s 3 year long call for retreat.  It is a strange world when liberals follow the Nixon examples.

6 responses so far

6 Responses to “To Die For Nothing”

  1. Carol_Herman says:

    Nion didn’t go unpunished. He never did win his reputation back!

    Kissinger? Less successful in his greasy pole climb than James Baker.

    As to the egos of men like that their punishments have a lot to do with a realization that they never made it to the “top.” And, they are, in fact, sullied by their betters.

    Yes. the crime in Vietnam was that our media displayed our military as COWARDS. A label better fitting Nixon and his bunch.

    But Nixon PAID. You could claim he wasn’t shot down fair and square. And, Mark Felt was no hero. And, I’d agree.

    But the donks, now, have nothing left. (Other than their moonbats.) And, we’re going to be subjected to the legal wranglings they can cook up; as their propaganda machinery gets even more sullied.

    Plus, separate from Nixon, LBJ wasn’t a “good guy,” either. Nor was Robert Kennedy. So where are they now? Far from any reputation worth having in history books, I’d claim. Nothing in sight, either, in terms of rehabilitation.

    Just off-side. One of the profound strengths of HOMER; is that he doesn’t cast the Greeks in a heroic light. He gives better than “measure for measure” to Troy. Yes. They lost. But it was a sad, sad war. A painful and laborious birth, after all for our Western culure.

    Life’s just not perfect.

    By the way, Nixon was wrong about one other thing. He once said (in 1962. When he lost the governor’s race in California; “that [the media] wouldn’t have Nixon to kick around, anymore.” Talk about a man with a very poor grasp of history. Or hystronics. Too bad some politicians take our military, as well as the public at large, so for granted. But, like hitler, himself, this crap is done at one’s own peril.

    Point to how Nixon ever looks good. In any light.

    I think, ahead, it’s the MSM that will learn you can’t re-play old scripts. (Especially when you think you can tamper with America’s icons. No backdoor mounting films, for me. Not the road to success! And, yes. I do notice when the rump of the Left’s devotees rise to knock something they don’t like, down.) Just in case you thought reputations are always gift wrapped; hardly NOT.

  2. crosspatch says:

    “promptly pulling out of the Paris peace talks” isn’t the way I remember it. I seem to remember bombing the living snot out of them until THEY went back to the peace talks.

  3. dgf says:

    Howdy Carol –

    I’m afraid I don’t understand what “donk” and “moonbat” mean. Could you translate that paragraph for me ? And, what are you saying in the last paragraph ?

    — Thanks

  4. dgf says:

    AJ —

    I don’t think it’s fair to characterize the division of opinion as to the wisdom/propriety of the Iraq adventure on strictly a “left-right” divide.

    There have been conservatives (well-known and otherwise) who oppposed the invasion from the outset, and liberals (w-kao) who supported it. And folks have switched sides over the course of the past three years filed with so much tragedy and death (tho the movement that I’m aware of, has been *into* the “anti-war camp”)

    And I’d take exception to the optimism of the “Bush Doctrine”, and the notion that liberals (or others) follow Nixon in opposing Bush’s “optimistic” adventures.

    And god fobid wars be for “for optimistic reasons” or for “pessimistic ones” or otherwise. Let us hope (and strive to see that) wars be not fought at all, unless absolutely necessary, and as a last resort. A precept not followed here, with Iraq. One not followed in Vietnam, either.

    Finally, of course, there have been thousands of US troops who have “died for nothing”, but that should only make us more resolute that we do not war unduly. God willing Iraq will turn out not to be the unmitigated tragedy which so many fear (me among them). If so, then the deaths of our troops, and those of the British, and the Spanish, etc. will not have been in vain. Not to mention the deaths — hundred-folds more — of Iraqis themselves, both military, militant and civilian; “innocents” and otherwise.

    But, at least as for our fallen and wounded troops, their deaths and iinjuries have to be seen also as not having been in vain, they did not “die for nothing”, if they served and fought and fell honorably.

    No doubt the overwhelming majority of US dead and wounded fall into that category, and today we honor their honor and sacrifice.

    Resquiat in Pace. And, Thank You.

    – Peace

  5. sbd says:

    New York Times can just rerun their columns from 1970 if the Dems get control of Congress. Just change these few names from the article below:

    McGovern becomes Murtha
    Agnew becomes Cheney
    Vietnam becomes Iraq

    And what do you get??
    You get the same old “Jackass” Democratic Party Line from 1970 reincarnated in 2006.

    NEW YORK TIMES August 18, 1970, Tuesday

    Information Bank Abstracts

    August 18, 1970, Tuesday

    SECTION: Page 1, Column 6

    LENGTH: 396 words


    Vice Pres Agnew charges McGovern-Hatfield excerpts; McGovern would halt American combat action at end of this year and bring all US troops home by mid-’71, is ‘blueprint for the 1st defeat’ in US history, VFW meeting, Miami Beach; says Nixon Administration is prepared to see war to ‘honorable end’; queries if amendment sponsors ‘give a damn’; says passage would destroy prospects of negotiated settlement, leave South Vietnamese prey to Communist slaughter and have other negative effects; acknowledges his charges are ‘among the strongest’ since he took office but says ‘no more dangerous’ proposal has been presented to Congress ‘in those 19 mos–or in 19 yrs for that matter’; McGovern issues statement saying real defeat would be to continue on present course; says he modifies amendment in bid to win passage; says changes would move date for final withdrawal back to Dec 31, ’71, and would call on President to submit list of problems and suggestions for carrying out withdrawal within 60 days after enactment; White House press secretary says Nixon shares Agnew’s opposition to proposal; Scott says he favors accelerated American withdrawal, but agrees that amendment would be ‘precipitous retreat’; Agnew states, more forcefully than Administration official has done before, White House view that US must remain engaged in South Vietnam to prevent Communist takeover of all SouthEast Asia; assails Senate doves, including Fulbright, for arguing that Nixon’s Cambodian decision underscores need to place limits on President’s war-making powers; says Nixon decision, which he calls Nixon’s ‘finest hr’, makes case that Sen ‘should leave the President alone’ to take necessary steps to protect American troops; McGovern says ‘God save us from whatever may be (Nixon’s) worst hour; Agnew says he does not question patriotism of Hatfield and McGovern, but finds fault with ‘their wisdom, their judgment and their logic’; says he finds it ironic that Senators who did not speak out while Johnson sent 532,000 troops to Vietnam ‘are obstructing and undercutting’ President who is bringing 265,000 Americans home; Goodell says Agnew statement ‘calls into serious question’ whether his trip to Indochina will provide Administration with ‘any fresh, objective insights’; says Agnew fails to note South Vietnam’s military force will be 4 times as large as enemy’s if US withdraws; Tass says Agnew shows US intends to keep its troops in South Vietnam indefinitely; Agnew illus; excerpts


  6. dgf says:

    SED —

    And what do you get??
    You get the same old “Jackass” Democratic Party Line from 1970 reincarnated in 2006.

    Well, I don’t see the translation from 1970 to 2006 as being particularly on point, but if there were a change in the power structure – if the Democrats were to come to control at least one of the legislative bodies – I’d feel a whole lot more comfortable about where the country was headed. (Not that I am particularly impressed with the courage or wisdom or leadership prowess of most politicians in either party.)

    It doesn’t really seem to work, a one-party state. Not during what I’ve seen over the past several years, at least. It appears that it is difficult to get effective oversight, under one-party rule. Not surprising, I suppose, if you deign to give it any thought.

    And re: VietNam, you may recall (or you may be too young to), that it was Nixon who had the “secret plan” to get us out of VietNam. He did, in fact get us out, ultimately, tho I doubted at the time that he had any sensible secret plan to do so. And as it came to pass, he did not. (I’ve learned to be skeptical about trusting the government or its administrators who rely strongly on secrecy; all too often “the need for secrecy” turns out simply reflect the fact that an ignorant public can be a convenient one, as far as those who rule are concerned.)

    While Nixon did “get us out” of VietNam (before his first term ended), how many more tens of thousand American dead and wounded were added to the list, after he was sworn in ? How many more grieving widows and fatherless children, here in the United States, and in Vietnam ? How much longer and more tragically majestic is The Wall, because of Richard M Nixon ?

    Of course, like President Bush, Nixon did effect positive accomplishments. But between his essential failures in VietNam and in Watergate, I do not see Nixon’s election as having been a success story for America or Americans.

    — Regards