The parliament has passed some 60 pieces of legislation as well as creating a process for the distribution of oil revenues. The military progress has reached heights beyond lib comprehension. At this point the leftists are simply dividing not knowing which way is up.

How can this progress be compared to the Cambodia blood bath? 

JDW

News media: Scoreboard for terrorists

Oh, where to start... 

Shuster: "But it's a fact that the murderous rule in Cambodia began well before the U.S. withdrew from Southeast Asia and many historians argue that the United States made the violence worse by going into Cambodia and Vietnam in the first place."

Actually, the Khmer Rouge was arming itself in the areas west of the centeral highlands using weaponry provided by the communists.  The actual take over of the KR did not happen until after the invasion of the south by the PAVN.  STRIKE ONE!

Shuster: "The President then said the pull-out from Southeast Asia emboldened America's enemies. But he wasn't talking about our enemies at the time, including communists and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Instead President Bush spoke of Osama Bin Laden, who mentioned Vietnam a few years ago while declaring America would be weak in fighting al-Qaeda."

Hell, even the press doubts the US national resolve to fight a long protracted battle just because of our experience in Vietnam. Hell, we have lost less than 4000 troops so far in the GWOT and the lefties are already characterizing it as losses greater than Vietnam.  STRIKE TWO!

Shuster: "Bin Laden, however, is running al-Qaeda from somewhere along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, not from inside Iraq. Furthermore the President's argument today, is at odds with his view of the Iraq war a view years ago.

How is this material?  STRIKE THREE!!!  But we will let him play on a bit.

Shuster: "However Democrats were most concerned and angry today about the President's invocation of Vietnam. Senator John Kerry called it quote, ‘As irresponsible as it is ignorant of the realities of both wars. Half the soldiers whose names are on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after the politicians knew our strategy would not work.

Hell, the US had won the war by the start of the 1970's.  THE VC - destroyed.  The NVA Bloodied to point of ten pins in every single engagement.  Progress everywhere but in the US Congress, in the press and on campuses.  So, how as our strategy not working??????  Strike Four!!!!!!!

Mike Barnicle: Do you think the President has ever read a book about Vietnam?"

Boy, don't the libs get upset when you remind that of the agony that the tye dyed hippie generation foisted upon the world discarded to international communism in the 1970's.

Have I ever read a book on the war in Vietnam?  Actually, my Thesis was on the US incursion of Cambodia.  So, I guess I HAVE MIKE!!!!

Mike

I just get so tired of this. Could we just split the country in two, let them destroy themselves and then reunited the country? Just imagine...a duct tape line right down the middle of the country.

""There have been nearly 1 million Iraqis
killed due to the occupation of that country. It can't get much worse.
This figure does not include US & insurgency casualties. Check out
the Lancet medical magazine."

And when you're finished with that, read "The Wizard of Oz" for proof that scarecrows can talk, and lions are 'fraidy cats.

We should have stayed another 40 year in Nam, by now everyone would be dead; there would be a lasting peace.

Let's do the same in Iraq, 40 years and out.

Make everyone go to pro Iraq war rallies, not to send the wrong message to our enemies. Anything else would be treason.

It's not just liberals who have yearned for 'tidy endings' to military entanglements.  

The concept has been a crucial element of the Powell Doctrine which was enunciated over a decade before the current Iraqi conflict, and espoused by conservatives since the Reagan administration.   And even assuming that "9/11 Changed Everything", are there no contingencies which would force a revision of the view that "the war will take as long as it takes" requiring a continued military presence "for a lifetime'?  What if...

--the situation disintegrates into full-scale sectarian warfare, or

--the establishment of a stable central government not only continues to prove illusive, but becomes so improbable that partitioning the country might be the only viable alternative, or

--the suppression of the insurgency would require a tripling of manpower which would stretch our military beyond the breaking point unless the draft were reinstituted, or

--the random killing of our troops simply contiuned at the present pace with no end in sight, or

--it were to become obvious that our ongoing presence in Iraq was fueling intense hatred in the Moslem and Arab world radicalizing even moderates to such an extent that tens of thousands of Islamic terrorists were created, posing a threat to our security for generations

Is it just 'stay the course' no matter what?

Jer

things that you'll never get the answer for from John Kerry.

" Senator John Kerry called it quote, ‘As irresponsible as it is
ignorant of the realities of both wars. Half the soldiers whose names
are on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after the politicians knew our
strategy would not work. "

A. What his real military record says?

B. How many names are on the Vietnam Memorial Wall because of the efforts of Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark, Walter Cronkite, John Kerry and every other American leftist North Vietnamese terrorist supporter?

C. Why the NorthVietnamese officer who accepted the surrender of Saigon claimed that the North Vietnamese could count on American leftists to defeat the Americans? Were promised made and kept? <a href="http://www.viet-myths.net/buitin.htm">Article

"

Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the
Americans?

Answer:
By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South
Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,
"We don't need
to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they
give up and get out."

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's
victory?
A: It was
essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear
was completely secure while the American rear was
vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen
to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the
growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by
people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark
and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold
on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated
when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press
conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war
and that she would struggle along with us."

D. Why would any American meet (as a civilian) in Paris with an enemy that was killing American soldiers in Vietnam?

(David Shuster: "35 years after America was torn apart by the 58,000 U.S. troops killed in the Vietnam War, today President Bush reopened the wounds. He argued to veterans in Kansas City that the United States got out of Vietnam too soon.")

I don't like to speak like this but DavidShuster is an ass.He is only outsurpassed by Chris Matthews who is the Mother of all asses.

Democrats think that they own Viet Nam and only they can make the comparisons.

They cannot stand that Bush throws the defeat that they fought so hard for back in their face and makes them look at it.

The killing fields are always the part of Viet Nam they leave out when they speak about it.

Victory in Iraq.

Newt for President.