Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Future Promise From Past Mistakes

Despite elections, the Iraqi war is now nearly intense for American soldiers as Vietnam was back 1966, according to blogger Phil Carter.

Gothamimage thinks and/or hopes that Novak and some other well-sourced conservatives may be correct when the say the Bush administration quietly recognized that they cannot stay in Iraq and are now look for ways to be in a position to extract at an opportune time, should that be necessary.

So we want to recall at previous post about what happened in 1967 in Vietnam:

In 1967 American soldiers were fighting and dying at increasing rates in an increasingly unpopular war thousands of miles away from home.The White House was occupied by an inarticulate Texan who had succeeded a popular, charismatic , and roguish liberal.

President Lyndon Johnson despised the New York media elite, with special malice reserved for the New York Times. Johnson, with some justice, felt the Times never gave him credit when due and always excused his predecessors (JFK''s)failings.

Yet, on one day in 1967, Lyndon Johnson could not have been more pleased with the New York Times than is he had written the article himself:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.....A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.- Peter Grose, New York Times'U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,' September 4, 1967.

We now know that LBJ and his advisors had already lost confidence in the war.

Yet, the number of casualties exploded and ripped our country apart from 1967-1975.

Indirectly, this led to Nixon being elected and Nixon resigning, because 'Watergate' began with an attempt to plug leaks of the "Pentagon Papers," which dealt mostly with LBJ's deceptions.

That's the irony of this tragedy.

Tragic was the trumpeting of seeming good news, while actually knowing or thinking things were actually much worse.

We fear we now may be making the same mistakes.

So if we plan on leaving, we hope the administration errs on the side of an early exit, which could have positive unintended consequences.

Since the fear of chaos is the only thing that you can accurately predict, that fear can serve as pre-emptive catalyst to get the various factions to face reality.

Also, Bush can "declare victory" in the way that one General suggested we do early on in Vietnam.

In fact, for Bush it would be easier, because he could just revert to the original reasons stated for the war.

Bush could say we had to confirm no WMD's, verify terror links, and remove an enemy to peace in the region.

The money saved could be used for better treatment for US soldiers and vets, incentive aid for Iraqi to move in the right direction politically and economically, development aide for Egypt and Jordon tied to the develpment of private economies, helping them broker more regional trade deals with Israel that would serve to create countervailing power bases that make conflict less attractive, continued aid for Israel and help in final border status negotiations with the Palestinians and Syrians, and a host of other things that would ultimately add to our wealth, rather run us into more debt.

23 Comments:

At 11:21 AM, Blogger amy said...

I couldn't agree more, GothamImage. Well said ... and well timed.

 
At 12:38 PM, Anonymous John said...

Here is the Hitchens article. Let readers make up their own minds.

Beating a Dead Parrot
Why Iraq and Vietnam have nothing whatsoever in common.

By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Jan. 31, 2005, at 1:16 PM PT


There it was again, across half a page of the New York Times last Saturday, just as Iraqis and Kurds were nerving themselves to vote. "Flashback to the 60's: A Sinking Sensation of Parallels Between Iraq and Vietnam." The basis for the story, which featured a number of experts as lugubrious as they were imprecise, was the suggestion that South Vietnam had held an election in September 1967, and that this propaganda event had not staved off ultimate disaster.

I can't quite tell why this article was not printed on the day before the Afghan or Palestinian elections, or at any of the times when Iranian voters overwhelmingly chose reform candidates but were thwarted by the entrenched reserve strength of the theocracy. But perhaps now is the moment to state the critical reasons why there is no reasonable parallel of any sort between Iraq and Vietnam.

To begin with, Vietnam had been undergoing a protracted struggle for independence since before World War II and had sustained this struggle militarily and politically against the French empire, the Japanese empire, and then after 1945 the French empire again. By 1954, at the epic battle of Dien Bien Phu, the forces of Ho Chi Minh and Gen. Giap had effectively decided matters on the battlefield, and President Eisenhower himself had conceded that Ho would have won any possible all-Vietnamese election. The distortions of the Cold War led the United States to take over where French colonialism had left off, to assist in partitioning the country, and to undertake a war that had already been lost.


Whatever the monstrosities of Asian communism may have been, Ho Chi Minh based his declaration of Vietnamese independence on a direct emulation of the words of Thomas Jefferson and was able to attract many non-Marxist nationalists to his camp. He had, moreover, been an ally of the West in the war against Japan. Nothing under this heading can be said of the Iraqi Baathists or jihadists, who are descended from those who angrily took the other side in the war against the Axis, and who opposed elections on principle. If today's Iraqi "insurgents" have any analogue at all in Southeast Asia it would be the Khmer Rouge.

Vietnam as a state had not invaded any neighbor (even if it did infringe the neutrality of Cambodia) and did not do so until after the withdrawal of the United States when, with at least some claim to self-defense, it overthrew the Khmer Rouge regime. Contrast this, even briefly, to the record of Saddam Hussein in relation to Iran and Kuwait.

Vietnam had not languished under international sanctions for its brazen contempt for international law, nor for its building or acquisition, let alone its use of, weapons of mass destruction.

Vietnam had never attempted, in whole or in part, to commit genocide, as was the case with the documented "Anfal" campaign waged by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds.

In Vietnam the deep-rooted Communist Party was against the partition of the country and against the American intervention. It called for a boycott of any election that was not an all-Vietnam affair. In Iraq, the deep-rooted Communist Party is in favor of the regime change and has been an enthusiastic participant in the elections as well as an opponent of any attempt to divide the country on ethnic or confessional lines. (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is not even an Iraqi, hates the Kurds and considers the religion of most Iraqis to be a detestable heresy: not a mistake that even the most inexperienced Viet Cong commander would have been likely to make.)

No car bomb or hijacking or suicide-bombing or comparable atrocity was ever committed by the Vietnamese, on American or any other foreign soil. Nor has any wanted international gangster or murderer ever been sheltered in Vietnam.

American generals and policymakers could never agree as to whether the guerrillas in Vietnam were self-supporting or were sustained from the outside (namely the northern half of their own country). However one may now view that debate, it was certainly true that Hanoi, and the southern rebels, were regularly resupplied not by minor regional potentates but by serious superpowers such as the Warsaw Pact and China, and were able to challenge American forces in battlefield order. The Iraqi "insurgents" are based among a minority of a minority, and are localized geographically, and have no steady source of external supply. Here the better comparison would be with the dogmatic Communists in Malaya in the 1940s, organized principally among the Chinese minority and eventually defeated even by an exhausted postwar British empire. But even the die-hard Malayan Stalinists had a concept of "people's war" and a brave record in fighting Japanese imperialism. The Iraqi "insurgents" are dismal riff-raff by comparison.

Where it is not augmented by depraved Bin Ladenist imports, the leadership and structure of the Iraqi "insurgency" is formed from the elements of an already fallen regime, extensively discredited and detested in its own country and universally condemned. This could not be said of Ho Chin Minh or of the leaders and cadres of the National Liberation Front.

The option of accepting a unified and Communist Vietnam, which would have evolved toward some form of market liberalism even faster than China has since done, always existed. It was not until President Kennedy decided to make a stand there, in revenge for the reverses he had suffered in Cuba and Berlin, that quagmire became inevitable. The option of leaving Iraq to whatever successor regime might arise or be imposed does not look half so appetizing. One cannot quite see a round-table negotiation in Paris with Bin Laden or Zarqawi or Moqtada Sadr, nor a gradually negotiated hand-over to such people after a decent interval.

In Vietnam, the most appalling excesses were committed by U.S. forces. Not all of these can be blamed on the conduct of bored, resentful, frightened conscripts. The worst atrocities—free-fire zones, carpet-bombing, forced relocation, and chemical defoliation—were committed as a direct consequence of orders from above. In Iraq, the crimes of mass killing, aerial bombardment, ethnic deportation, and scorched earth had already been committed by the ruling Baath Party, everywhere from northern Kurdistan to the drained and burned-out wetlands of the southern marshes. Coalition forces in Iraq have done what they can to repair some of this state-sponsored vandalism.

In Vietnam, the United States relied too much on a pre-existing military caste that often changed the local administration by means of a few tanks around the presidential palace. In the instance of Iraq, the provisional government was criticized, perhaps more than for any other decision, for disbanding the armed forces of the ancien regime, and for declining to use a proxy army as the United States had previously done in Indonesia, Chile, El Salvador, and Greece. Unlike the South Vietnamese, the Iraqi forces are being recruited from scratch.

In Vietnam, the policy of the United States was—especially during the Kennedy years—a sectarian one that favored the Roman Catholic minority. In Iraq, it is obvious even to the coldest eye that the administration is if anything too anxious to compose religious differences without any reference to confessional bias.

I suppose it's obvious that I was not a supporter of the Vietnam War. Indeed, the principles of the antiwar movement of that epoch still mean a good deal to me. That's why I retch every time I hear these principles recycled, by narrow minds or in a shallow manner, in order to pass off third-rate excuses for Baathism or jihadism. But one must also be capable of being offended objectively. The Vietnam/Iraq babble is, from any point of view, a busted flush. It's no good. It's a stiff. It's passed on. It has ceased to be. It's joined the choir invisible. It's turned up its toes. It's gone. It's an ex-analogy.

...only to be resurrected at Gothamimage, it appears.

 
At 1:35 PM, Blogger Copeland said...

The parallels between Iraq and Vietnam concern how we got into war, and how we remained in the war; it spite of objective reports that the war was a disaster, made under cover of secrecy by the US administration's own experts.

LBJ said we would never "send American boys to do what Asian boys should do." But that was a blatant lie that was only floated with a view toward winning the election against Goldwater.

 
At 1:41 PM, Anonymous John said...

I let Hitchens address the post for me. Drop the Vietnam analogies.

"Get out of the sixties! We don't have thsat mentality anymore!"

Bobby Flekman, "This is Spinal Tap"

 
At 1:45 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

This is more about Hitch maintaining a link to his left left past and deviously dragging rightist with him, as they end up quoting him like scripture.

 
At 7:55 PM, Blogger Irina Tsukerman said...

Guys, we're asking ourselves all the wrong questions and drawing the wrong comparisons.

I'm talking about the demographical makeup and the culture of the countries, of course. As someone noted on another blog, the problem Iraq is not just in terrorism but in disunity of the various groups living there. Whether U.S. is there or not, those problems are going to continue. One way to overcome them would be to encourage nationalism rather than to emphasize inter-religious differences. But how to do that?

 
At 8:53 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Irina - that's our point. The logic of out presence is encouraging that which we do not want. Currently, we seem to be more a beneficiary to the Iranian leadership, not ourselves or Iraq

 
At 9:23 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Beware of 'conservatives' quoting Hitchens.

We want to acknowledge the poor comparison between Iraq and Vietnam; in general they are different, but in some areas regarding the formulation of honest policy , there are similarities.

Vietnam, though it was ill fated and 'in retrospect' it should not have been fought for a variety of reasons. This is the view of those who then led the charge in the highest councils of state.

Yet, there was a certain cold war logic that was understandable- similar to the way GWOT led us to confront Qaeda in Afganistan and elsewhere- but the reasons given for Iraq were different- they hinged on WMD's and alleged links to 9-11,

Thou President Kennedy was circumspect about increasing America's presence in Vietnam, LBJ was the one who pushed the Tonkin Gulf resolution, which converted our assistance to S. Vietnam to full scale American involvement.

So while you see how Vietnam was indeed, part of a larger 'twilight struggle,' the events after Tonkin Gulf are what deepend a flawed, if understandable predicament.

So you can disagree with the Vietnam war and the decision to fight it- but you can see the underlying logic.

Hitchens has is own reasons for his support for the Iraq war, but they are different than the Bush admin's stated reasons

Vietnam was not aboout alleged WMD stockpiles or possible 9-11 links.

Communism, at one time, was on the move in a way that Iraq was not -
Iraq's economy was less than southern New Jersey. It's army was prostrate, it's people were suffering and it's army was not a threat.

N. Vietnam had an army and so did S. Vietnam - Russia and China supported the former, we supported the South.

Hitchens, as a man of the left , shared a VC sympathy during that time, with many of his fellow partisans.- no one in America sided with Saddam. No one that we know or can think of.

John and Hitchens are entitle to their opinions, but we disagree.

 
At 10:19 PM, Blogger j said...

Although there are certainly differences between Vietnam and Iraq- and therefore, any analogy is rightly suspect- I think that the current situation would beg comparison in the mind of any historian.

The problem in '67, as it is now, was that the US found itself stuck and couldn't see a way to get out. Then, as now, the military found that it was overextended. Then, as now, the government could not find a way to leave without harming the nation's prestige.

Sad, that we wish to support our troops, yet we send them into a quagmire yet again.

 
At 10:27 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Presumably most conservatives disagree with Hitch's characterization of Vietnam and his view toward Nixon and Kissinger- but we think he is consistant in that there is nothing conservative, per se, about out war in Iraq.

 
At 10:34 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Sad is the key word J. It is very sad and very depressing. We still have not done everything for people who suffered from the last Gulf War- over 100000 on disability - and that was charcterized as a "cakewalk" by one of the leading war hawks.

 
At 10:55 PM, Blogger Andros said...

Look, I wasn't old enough to go through the pains of the Vietnam war, but we all have felt the aftermath and the wounds of that failed war.
To me the real question is what have we learned from it? Very little if I judge from the actions of the chickenhawks in Washington.
It's bad for America to go to war when:
-there isn't a good majority of Americans supporting it
-there isn't a planned exit strategy before the war starts
-there isn't a clear threat to our national security
-start a war based on lies and fabricated evidence

And, unless we intervene to end a humanitarian crisis (like in Kosovo and today in Sudan), we shouldn't invade countries to "export democracy".....

What Bush has done is to divide our friends and unite our enemies...
And, don't tell me that we're safer today because we took out Sadam!

 
At 10:27 PM, Blogger Phelonius said...

These are the main reasons that I am a Libertarian to this very day. I grew up hating the dems because vietnam was really their war. Yet, at that time, they were really the conservative element in Texas and other southern states. I was not a "hippie" as I was too young at that point to understand what they were about, but my relatives and others were very bitter about a protracted war that had no forseeable end or satisfactory result. The only result was more death for both sides. If I had lived before WWII I probably would have been an isolationist, as I seem to have many values that identify with that philosophy. Recognizing that one cannot be a true isolationist these days (9/11 does in fact still piss me off) I am not sold on the idea that another "vietnam" in the middle east will bring us either piece or prosperity.

The similarities are obvious. The differences are more subtle. We cannot ignore the lessons of the past and expect to do better, but neither can we fool ourselves into thinking that the two conflicts are absolutely identical and make more mistakes based on faulty analogies. If Bush is actually wrong, then getting out now will still have an impact, and the same holds true if he is right and we pull out prematurely. Regardless of our feelings about that, I cannot see that having a former puppet regime in the person of Saddam Hussein still in power as being a positive influence in the middle east. Perhaps we are compounding our sins by taking him out in this fashion, but allowing the Kmer Rouge, for example, to kill like they did without a penalty does not strike me as being a good solution either.

As a country we must now search for post cold-war solutions, taking into account that many of the problems encountered were originally a response to the Soviet threat. These are not pretty pictures in every account, but we must, as a country, survive.

JB

 
At 11:52 PM, Anonymous John said...

The invasion of Iraq is part of the overall, long-term strategy for winning the GWOT. It's not a question of whether it is or not.

What should be debated is the wisdom of the strategy, whether you prefer confrontation and reformation, or appeasement of mentalities that are incompatible with global progress and world peace.

It's not our fault that the tourist industry of Baghdad and Tehran have lost potential billions over the decades.

It's the terrorists' fault.

The Islamic "Fundamentalists" conveniently ignore or dismiss--as Al Zarqawi did the other day--the Quranic passages which forbid the killing of fellow Muslims, and of suicide.

And those are the kind of people that attacked us on 9/11 (for what reasons again?), and are currently trying to disrupt the efforts--BY SANE IRAQIS-- towards Iraqi harmony.

Our people are dying for nothing less than a better world.

 
At 2:48 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

John is good man- his heart is the right place- we just disagree with what his intrep. of the admin. strategy was when verbalized and then signed onto on the GWOT treaty.

 
At 1:16 PM, Blogger Copeland said...

I don't see any effective strategy working in this White House, much less a long-term strategy, with respect to GWOT. The invasion and occupation of Iraq would certainly not be part of such a strategy. Democratization at the point of a bayonet is not working in Iraq.

America's founders wrote that "a decent respect for the opinion of Mankind" should matter to us. But Bush has abandonned all that, in the pursuit of an obsession in Iraq. Bush's Iraq policy was, and is, an obsession that blots out the possibility of any benefit to us or the Iraqis. Just as in Vietnam, it's possible for the US to win most every set-piece engagement and still lose the war (and I'm referring to the war in Iraq, not GWOT).

But if the GWOT becomes America's new Moby Dick and if we have only "Ahabs" in the White House, we could lose the whole "shootin' match".

 
At 5:33 PM, Anonymous MandT said...

Excellent post and commentary.
"And those are the kind of people that attacked us on 9/11" The kind of people who attacked are Saudies, who support radical, terrorist Wahabi State funadmentalism. The Saudies to whom the Carlyle group and the Bush family in general and deeply indebted own over a trillion dollars in American assets. Gosh, is that just merely academic? Michael

 
At 8:29 PM, Blogger Irina Tsukerman said...

Only Bush? You seem to be forgetting that the previous administrations pursued the same alliance.

 
At 3:35 AM, Anonymous John said...

Saddam had to go. Iran should not be allowed to harness uranium at this juncture. The United States of America has the lowest gas prices in the world. We have the highest home-ownership in the world. The Dow is comfortably above the 10,000 watershed mark. Unemployment is at an impressive 5.1 %. Unemployment in the District is at 0. NASA is busy forging ahead with manned lunar and Mars missions. Quadaffi has renounced WMD development. The Syrians have pulled out of Lebanon. Girls are going to school in Afghanistan. Abbas is denouncing terrorism. Israel is working with him. Egypt AND Saudi Arabia have recognized basic Civil Rights--however incrementally, but as defined by America.
Bin Laden is in hiding--probably in a cave. Saddam is awaiting trial--in his underwear. Zarqawi is a violent fool who's going to get himself killed. The insurgents are terrorists who deliver nothing but chaos and death and chaos, and will be reciprocated accordingly.

Al Qaeda has "grown."

Bring it on.

The lives we lost in two years in Iraq are half of what we lost in one day on 9/11. They are not unrelated.

Meanwhile, the American anti-war Left cries: "Bush lied about WMDS! Iraq has nothing to do with GWOT! Abu Ghraib! ABU GHRAIB!!!"

 
At 4:05 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Gothamimage is not 'Declinist.' While the Iraq war is bad , we can recover if we learn from mistakes.

However, Declinists are correct when they point out the vast level of ignorance and misinformation that was required to sell the war.

Indeed, many studies show that overwhelming numbers of Bush voters had incorrect knowledge about WMD's and 9-11 links to Saddam

Among people with the correct facts, not just blue states, but also red states, Kerry won by a landslide.

This put the interests of Bush at odd with the interest of Citizens; Citizens are supposed to be informed, while Subjects are just followers.

This means that there is a real danger of decaying into an Empire, the way Rome did before the birth of Christ.

While Pat Buchanan's prejudicial attitudes are so absurd as to qualify as a form of performance art, he is correct on this one fact. There are dark elements of both parties who want America to become an Empire, rather than a Republic with some Imperial detrius.

A Republic has Citizens- Citizens are informed of facts and then offer opinions. An Empire requires only foaming multitudes, who get their news from talking hockey pucks on cable TV.

These are not opinions we are talking about , but facts.

Just the facts, Maam.

Imagine if you, dear reader, believed what majorities of Bush voters believed about 9-11 links and Saddam's WMD's, then you can understand why they vote the way they do.

Declinists aver that it is a sign of decadence when the fortunes of the leadership are dependent on the misfortunes and misundertandsing of those he leads-in the USSR the media regularly just regurgitated lies.

That might be one of the reasons Communist tactics are so popular with the modern right.

Also, on the far right, (not traditional conservatives), you see the rise of "Great Leader" thinking.

More than once, we have heard, and so have you, someone on TV or in the news, linking admiration to Bush with admiration for America. It gets's funny sometimes.

Two days ago, we heard a guy on the radio imply disdain of Bush was unpatriotic. Seriously.

It's rather bizarre and against the spirit of what America is supposed to be about, but it exists- if you doubt us , take a look.

This is a disturbing development- when Clinton was in office, gothamimage did not support him. We recall heated arguments, but we cannot recall any Clinton supporters trying to imply we were unpatriotic.

Lately, we do hear some Bush supporters do that though- never to our face, but we do hear it.

It's as if there was some mystical "Great Leader" concept inherent in their worldview.

It's fascinating to observe, but it is sad nonetheless.

Anyway, we think this will pass- it's just a outbreak that comes and goes. We hope.

The war against Iraq is not part of the War on Terror= which is covered by a signed treaty called GWOT, with 60 some odd countries. The Iraq war is a seperate entity-not just factually, but also legally.

Corporate advertising has taught Bush politicos that if they link certain images in the mind, they can make people believe all sorts of things= intellectually, you know that Irish Spring soap is made off some highway in New Jersey, but emotionally you still think it has something to do with Ireland. Beer and car commercials also do this with the babe-link.

The Bush people figured if they talked about Iraq in the same paragraph as they talked about 9-11, the people would make an emotional, if inaccurate connection. The pollster Luntz helped them formualate the key words of manipulation.

This allows Bush to create a bizarre linkage in people's minds , that Iraq and everything East of Suez, in together.

You see whiffs of that when you hear some furious Bushbot defend the Iraq war by saying "they attacked us on 9-11!" When you correct him, he just gets angry- when you point out that it was mostly Saudis and the Taliban was back by Pakistan, he gets confused and angrier.

He gets even more confused when he sees how close Bush is the Gulf families, and the Pakistani leadership.

This cognitive dissonance was necessary- 77 percent of Bush voters thougt Saddam was involved in 9-11, precisely after it was revealed he was not, and a similar number of Bush supporters thought that Saddam still had WMD. Neocons can have a good chuckle at the successs of this- no doubt, Cheney has burped out a giggle of two.

But the rest of do not laugh.

Among informed voters- voters with the correct facts (we are not talking opinions, which are subjective) -Kerry won a landslide.

So Bush was in this paradoxical position where perpetuating ignorance and misleading people was vital to his own succes, but against America's. - in a sense, Bush's could not risk and outbreak of enlightenment.

 
At 5:15 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

John - where did we bring up France's economy? Huh? What were you responding to? An imaginary assertion?

Also, where do you get your statistics on home ownership? What are the breakdowns you use on mortgages homes and fully owned homes?

John's reactions are fascinating.

John wrote:
"really thinik you should take a second look at France's economy, WC. "

We went back and tried to find what we said about France's economy.

We were trying to find out what John thought he was responding to-


This is instructive.

Have you ever heard someone on talk radio bring up France when someone points out WMD revelations or 9-11 revelations?

Ofcourse, they have nothing to do with what is being discussed. It's as if France has become some odd bogeyman in the mind- a phantom.

France has many problems, but most of the hatred directed against it on the far right in the USA is vague and ill-though out. Often they seem to hate France, not for what she does wrong (Vietnam, Algeria, etc), but what she does well- education, health, civilization, etc.

Also, since Chirac is a decorated vet, and did not duck service like you know who, the attempt discredit him personally, serves to undermine the importance of biography - ie= you discredit the warning he gave Bush BEFORE the Iraq debacle.

Even conservatives in the US, who do not like Chirac, and presumbaly preferred Mitterand, have to admit that if we listened to Chirac, all those casualties we have suffered, could have been prevented.

Then again, until John brought up France's economy, we did even address the issue.

 
At 5:21 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

John writes:

Meanwhile, the American anti-war Left cries: "Bush lied about WMDS! Iraq has nothing to do with GWOT! Abu Ghraib! ABU GHRAIB!!!"


Indeed the left does cry that, but so do conservatives like Paul Craig Roberts, Michael Lind, and many others - Also, gothmimage is centrist, but we see John trying to lump up in with the left, so as to discredit, by implication. He offers no proof that we are on the left, because he knows there is none.

But John's view is symptomatic of a large problem - just in this past year, we have met at least three people who have tried to insist that support for the Iraq was is conservative, and opposition to it is liberal.

 
At 9:08 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

For comments, please stick to the issue posted- time constrains us to reply to unrelated attacks. Stick to public personalities and refrain from directing personal comments.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home