Charles Schumer Vows To Plunge America Into Another Vietnam
Is this the face of the Democratic Party?
After Republicans blocked a Senate debate for a second time, Democrats said Saturday they’ll drop efforts to pass a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq and instead will offer a flurry of anti-war legislation “just like in the days of Vietnam.”
The tough talk came a day after the House of Representatives passed its own anti-Iraq resolution and as the GOP used a procedural vote to stop the Senate from taking a position on the 21,500 troop increase.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would be “relentless.”
“There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam,” Schumer said. “The pressure will mount, the president will find he has no strategy, he will have to change his strategy and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm’s way and come home.”
The gloves are off, that’s clear…and the mask is falling off, too. The ‘moderate’ Democrats who won the 2006 midterms are nowhere in sight. When Senators as well-regarded as Schumer start talking like columnists for The Nation, you can bet that we are through the looking glass.
Another Vietnam? Who wants this?…
It’s apparently true. The anti-war crowd says they support the troops. But in fact— deep in their hearts—they really do believe if there were no armies there would be no wars.
No real surprise here. From day one, the Democrats have been declaring the war in Iraq a failure and they have devoted themselves to making it so.
I suspect that de-funding the war may become the Democrats’ proverbial government shut-down and impeachment. They led a revolution based upon, if anything, economic populism and restoring ethics. But their major focus has been bringing down Bush.
We won the war in Vietnam
. It just took a little longer than expected. Will either side of the debate on whether Iraq is another Vietnam take notice?
Huh? Every single Democrat who won in the 2006 midterms was highly critical of the war in Iraq. Indeed, that’s why they were elected. It has nothing whatsoever to do with “moderacy.” Jim Webb was a Republican for most of his career. But there is no bigger critic of this war.
The notion that being anti-surge is somehow an “immoderate” position is crazy. It’s the position held by over 70% of the population.
And your thoughts on Schumer’s apocalyptic rhetoric, Anonymous? Do you suppose if he had talked that way prior to 2006, it might have made people think twice?…
Plus:
Every single Democrat who won in the 2006 midterms was highly critical of the war in Iraq…
Ah, but you forgot your ‘favorite’ Democrat, Joseph Lieberman…
Nope. Didn’t forget. He’s an Independent. And he only won because 1) he got virtually all the Republican votes and 2) he finally started voicing criticism of the war and Bush (which he then promptly forgot about after the election).
As for Shumer, I think you use the word ‘apocalyptic’ rather loosely. Absent a miraculous improvement of the situation on the ground, nothing is going to turn public opinion back in favor of Bush or the war. The public hates this war and they hate Bush. That’s what the Democrats won in November. That’s why they are forcing the Republicans to vote now. That’s why McConnell’s “victory” was pyrrhic at best.
Nope, sorry, Lieberman has made it very clear he’s caucusing with the Democrats. He only ran as an Independent because Ned “Worst Candidate Ever” Lamont won the Democratic primary. To claim Lieberman is not a Democrat is willful blindness on your part – and shows just how big the Democratic tent really is – if you support the war, no room for you!…
AL, that’s a lot of hate there. I wonder though if the Democrat leadership is as confident of this as you. If they shared your assessment, then it’s hard to imagine them not denying the appointment of Petraeus, followed by a real attempt to pull the plug on funding by putting that on the floor of both the House and the Senate as legislation rather than as non-binding resolutions. And there’s precedent: The House and Senate under Democrat leadership pulled the plug on military assistance to South Vietnam during the Ford administration which forced the removal of remaining American forces in-theater in addition to hobbling the SVA. If Schumer is serious about removing troops from “harm’s way”, then he and his colleagues have a strange way of showing it. Pretty weak tea there.
Dems in recent history play their politics according to “the polls”. And they have to suck up to their very liberal “Bush is Hitler” base. I think this is a legitimate way to conduct one’s personal/legislatitive duties in order to squeeze re-election dollars out of their constituencies.
But can you name any 5 people of your own choosing who don’t see through this charade and realize that the Dems possess neither the heart nor soul to run this country?
Some Americans are partisan fanatics 24/7; the vast majority are not. As the Dems take these stinky roll call votes, don’t you think that marginal Dem. voters are rethinking their loyalty? And their last vote?
I believe “defunding” will cause a pain and prolonged recovery similar to self inflicted neutering. Good luck, Lefties. Nancy has gauze and Tylenol waiting.
Ron T
Here’s a question to ask every Democrat possible:
“To what extent is the Democrat Party now invested in defeat in Iraq?”
Anonymous Liberal writes: “The public hates this war and they hate Bush.”
Here’s the “overreaching” in a nutshell. The public doesn’t hate Bush and they don’t hate the war. They don’t support a war that seemingly goes on forever with no plan for victory. They don’t support a war in which all they hear is American troops getting killed and car bombs going off in marketplaces. For all the talk about Bush “selling” the war, he’s pathetic at communicating. I’ve pulled my hair out about this since during the 2000 campaign. I can’t understand, why he doesn’t use he best arguments and why he doesn’t understand the importance of an information strategy. He still relies on the opposition Mainstream Media to get his message out. It’s no wonder that doesn’t work, but he doesn’t change it.
The Democrat’s mistake will be to believe their own propaganda, believe the Mainstream Media. American’s don’t want to lose in Iraq to punish Bush. They want to win, but don’t see Bush trying to win. So, if we aren’t going to win, let’s get the hell out and let the savages kill one another. That’s the public’s view. But it ain’t the Democrat’s view. And that’s the rub for the Democrats. Do the Democrats really want 20 years of the politics of “who lost Iraq”? Do they really want the 20 years of politics post-Viet Nam? That’s not a winning strategy for the Democrats, but that’s what the Nutroots want.
When you have Democrats in congress that do not know the difference between Sunni and Shiite, who think that Al Quida is run by Shiites and THEY sit on the intelligence committee. When you have the likes of Larry King on CNN, who does not know what the Battle of the Bulge was all about, when you have unrelenting criticism of the war in Iraq since day one from the press (remember we were bogged down in our advance to Baghdad on the third day of the start, and it was all “down hill” from that point on. What can you expect from the general public? Those that are blindly indifferent to public affairs, and whose sum total of knowledge of the History of Iraq, the rule of Saddam Hussein, the acts perpetrated by his regime against Iran, Kuwait, and his own nationals are the 3 minute sound bites they get from NBC, CBS, and ABC, or what is reported by the AP, and New York Times. These idiotis (hats off to Christopher Hitchens) are the blind, senseless mob that was once the Lynch mobs of the old west, and are now the core constituency of the Democratic Party. You fire up the mob, provide them with ropes and torches and send the baying at the White House for the “blood” of President Bush. Never once seeming to understand the Clinton administration, the intelligence agencies of Germany, Egypt, Jordan, all “knew” that Saddam had “weapons of mass destruction”, and was trying to go “nuclear”. It was not Bush and Blair massaging intelligence, or lying to the world about Saddam. It was our precipitous withdrawal from Mogadishu after the “Black Hawk down” incident that led these terrorists to believe that the USA did not have the “stomach” to take casualties, and the democrats are proving them right. This war with terrorists was not started by George Bush, and leaving Iraq, will only embolden them. Just read what the Al Quida has written and said.
*Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
All the above took place before we invaded Iraq. Until we prove to these Islamo facists that, as President Kennedy once pronounced “We will pay any price” The free world will be at the mercy of these fanatics
I was, you should remember if you are totally honest, the American people that closed down the Vit Nam war, and it was a Republican preisdient who withdrew finally American troops from Viet Nam. And if that was a just war, then why are we such pals with that country now and doing business etc with them? Why were we there and why did Prs. Johnson lie to keep us there etc etc
Simplistically saying we should stay in a war that is largely now between warring factions within the Muslim faith is flag waving at its worst. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq and now,because of a western presence, they are, and in Afghaistan they are bak assiting the Taliban while the opium crops bloom as never before (or not to the same degree).
We went into Iraq for _______ reason; and the when that proved not true for ________reason. Meanwhile, Saddam, a terrible guy, did keep Iran in check. With our going into Iraq, removing Saddam, Iran now is pretty much in charge of the region with no country able to offset them.
The Americanpeople clearlydemonstrated in the last elecdtion that they feel we ought no longer be in the middle of a sectarian war and that after allo these years it is time to let baby stand up and walk and fall if he must in the process. But after so much killing of each side by their own, and a huge brain drain of the talented and educated, Iraq is worse now than it was. Yes. Worse now. And ask but this uestion; are we builging permanent bases in iraaq, and if yes or if not, why won’t the govtg ansswer this when asked.
So, Fred, are you equally proud of the 2 million Cambodians and 1 million (at minimum) Vietnamese your propaganda threw into the grave? All yours, baby. Democrats have been fighting for slavery since 1860 and genocide by Socialism since 1918.
Anti surge? The Democrats are not just anti surge. Read what Schumer said! They admit that want this to end the same way the war in Indochina ended. Some may not remember, but I do. It ended with the deaths of millions. If they are successful in forcing our retreat, let us make sure they are forced to accept responsibility for its consequences.
They got away with it after Viet Nam. Never Again.
Democrats believe their rhetoric with a fervor that gives new meaning to “fanatic”
How one group can be so wrong so often and still insist upon being given credibility is tribute to the “big lie” therory, they have used the “viet Nam playbook page and verse and it will ultimately have the same tragic results
If the Democrats wanted to stop the surge, they could. If they wanted to bring the troops home, they could. If they really thought it was a position held by 70% of the population, they would. There’d be no reason not to. We can see their priorities, be against the surge but don’t do anything that’ll hurt them in the next election.
The one big difference will be that while, as in Vietnam, we will likely finish training native troops in the defense of their country prior to leaving, the IA will have the funds to buy their own beans and bullets and will not be depending on the Congress’ largess as the ARVN was forced to, much to their ultimate regret.
Anyone who thinks this is strickly a battle between two Islamic religious factions is ignorant of history. This battle has been going on since Mohammad died in 632 AD but it still didn’t and hasn’t stopped true belivers from trying to eliminate unbelievers from the world and make the way for the Madi to return. The only difference between the two is one believes the Madi came and is in hiding and the other believes he has not yet appeared. In either case, death to all unbelievers, i.e. non-Muslims, is the ultimate goal. That’s what we are facing, plain and smiple.
[...] Decision '08 Says this: The gloves are off, that’s clear…and the mask is falling off, too. The ‘moderate’ Democrats who won the 2006 midterms are nowhere in sight. [...]
Schumer and Murtha are fools. Their meanness of spirit is leading them to undermine America. I am saddened by how these men are willing to sell America for political gain. I continue to applaud the troops in their steadfast resolution.
It is time for Bush to be a man and speak directly to Schumer and Murtha and call them traitors for political gain.
Those “moderate democrats” were never moderate to begin with. Almost to a one, they’re farther left on economic issues than any crop of politicians we’ve seen in decades, and were similarly opposed to the Iraq War.
Sonya: oh teh noes! Well, that’d be a shocker for a Republican to avoid substantive debate with name-calling.
Jabba: despite your conviction that the American people are irrational fools that can be pulled this way or that by media coverage, a poll from the Washington Post in 2002 – before the war – told us that only 35%, IIRC, would support a war that went on for more than a few years, required 50k soldiers in Iraq, and cost 15 billion / year.
We’ve beaten those figures handily, mind you, so it’s really no surprise at all that people don’t support this war. They said they wouldn’t, and now they don’t. This isn’t about communications or media: it’s about the American public being rational. h
Empty threats. They can’t shut off debate on a non-binding resolution, how can they do it on a real amendment. Let alone override a veto.
Do they think they can pass a funding bill with huge strings attached, have it vetoed and then not be forced to pass a clean bill?
Further, compare the Dem majority in either 1972-74 and 1974-1976 to now. The 1975 majority in particular was huge with the watergate babies. No such majority exists now. Chuck can’t back up his macho, no way, no how.
On Nonbinding Votes
…is there anyone out there asking how this move will improve the US security posture in the region, long term national security, or long term strategic interests in the Middle East and around the world, especially when al Qaeda is still active in I…
Senator Chuck Schumer predicts “resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam”
The anti-war rhetoric of the anti-war Democratic party escalates:
WASHINGTON – After Republicans blocked a Senate debate for a second time, Democrats said Saturday they’ll drop efforts to pass a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush̵…
[...] Mark Coffey writes in response: The gloves are off, that’s clear…and the mask is falling off, too. The ‘moderate’ Democrats who won the 2006 midterms are nowhere in sight. When Senators as well-regarded as Schumer start talking like columnists for The Nation, you can bet that we are through the looking glass. [...]
The fact is, Schumer can’t pass legislation. What he can do is endlessly debate, form partisan investigative committees, hold press conferences, and just generally muddy the water. In so doing, Democrats set themselves up to receive no credit for success, but a good share of the blame for any failure. Great strategy!
Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report
“The notion that being anti-surge is somehow an “immoderate” position is crazy. It’s the position held by over 70% of the population.”
Well, then by all means let us decide to lead the nation and the world based upon poling data. Bill Clinton taught us the value of running a nation based on polls, while simultaneously refusing to act as the United States was attacked repeatedly. (U.S.S. Cole, Kobe Towers, World Trade Center 1). And let us not forget how decisive he was in managing the opportunity he was given to eliminate Osama Bin Laden. Yes, let us return to those wonderfull days where leadership depended upon the direction of the current winds of public emotion. That certainly worked well for 3000 innocent New Yorkers, and those evil Pentagon employees, along with those pesky passengers on Flight 93. Yes, lets do take another poll.
What Schumer really means with his comparison to Vietnam is this:
I was young then; we had free sex, drugs and rock n’ roll (Ok we paid for the sex but the other two were free!) I want the people of America to experience in 2007/8 what I experienced in 1967/8, because, let’s be truthful, once 2009 rolls round, and the Democrat Party controls everything, the party will be over. Long Live PC! Death to Bush! Allah Who??
To anyone who talks about how much the was “costs’, I then ask, “how much are you willing to pay in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)?” In other words, if the current price is too much, what IS the price? My gut feeling is that the anti-war sentiment is this: we don’t want to see anyone die for anything, and we won’t pay for much either — well, OK, we’ll pay a wee little bit of money and if a few soldiers die, then, well, OK.
As a retired military officer, I hate to see anyone die, but, unfortunately, death is a part of any struggle with evil. And terrorism is evil. And it costs big bucks to beat evil.
Thank God the people who founded this nation had a different position on doing whatever it took for freedom and liberty to stand tall in these United States.