Blogs for Bush Team
Matt Margolis, Founder/Editor
Mark Noonan, Editor
Kevin Patrick, Senior Writer
Paul Lewis, Senior Writer

News Tips

Guest Bloggers
Leo Pusateri

Sponsors

Blogroll For Bush


Above are the 43 most recently updated blogs. Click here for the full blogroll

Allies


Archives
Categories

B4B Coverage Of...
The 2004 Republican National Convention
The Alito Nomination
The Roberts Nomination
The Roberts Hearings
Hurricane Katrina

Recent Posts
Why We Fight
Pelosi Says No Impeachment If Dems Win Control
More Book News
Ronald Reagan, The Crusader
And it will be Christmas in 2008, as well!
Murtha compares himself with George McGovern.
What Media Bias? Part 70
Debunking the "wave" election of 2006...
If He Runs, He Gets the Democratic Nomination in 2008...
Is Hating President Bush Enough?
How About a Republican Senator From Hawaii?
This is no time to drink the Kool-Aid--Part II
Supreme Court Rules Voter Fraud Can be Prevented
The War Against Religion, Part 8
Cut and run? Nothing could make Osama happier
The Perils of Polling
Hell hath no fury...
Now's not the time to drink the kool-aid; on the contrary...
How is it Going in Iraq?
The Paranoid Left


Margolis Media Works

Add to My Yahoo!
CentCom

GOP Bloggers

Thank you, President Bush

Social Security Information



Blogs for Bush Store





Search The Grand Old Portal

Donate to Blogs For Bush to help keep us blogging!
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Prime Sponsor

Premium Sponsors

More Sponsors

GOP Bloggers


Subscribe To B4Bcast!


Site Credits
RSS 2.0

Powered by:
Movable Type 3.2

Design by:





ANNOUNCEMENT: Matt Margolis & Mark Noonan get a book deal!


October 23, 2006
Murtha compares himself with George McGovern.

And it is a fair comparison.

Details at Murtha Must Go!!

Posted by leo at October 23, 2006 12:37 AM



Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/crawford.cgi/7874

Comments

McGovern was a loser, Murtha is a loser.

Comparison works for me.

Posted by: Lew Waters [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 23, 2006 02:13 AM

And one year after the election Nixon pulled out of Vietnam. I don't call it cut and run. It is something that had to happen. We could have stayed 25 years in Vietnam and it would have made little difference.

America should be thankful for visonaries such as Rep Murtha, Sen Warner, McGovern and James Baker. They have the guts to speak out against a failed Republican Iraq plan. They are simply suggesting a new approach.

Only Neocon Chickenhawks that have never served in the military and only seek war profiteering would place our young men and women in the middle of this civil war. Our military is not trained for this.

Posted by: Josh Keaton at October 23, 2006 08:57 AM

Josh, your knowledge of Viet Nam appears to be wanting. Yes, Nixon did pull us out of Viet Nam, with an agreed upon ceasefire that should the North invade or resume hostilities, we would not let them fall and we would support them.

Public pressure, due mostly to inaccurate reporting of the war (much like today) left Nixon little choice.

By April 1975, Nixon was gone, the Democrat Congress had their Church amendment forbiding any military aid to Viet Nam under any circumstances and as the North invaded and swarmed over Saigon, we sat on duffle bags in the Company area waiting for orders that never came.

As for "visionaries," not even close. A true visionary would have seen the North was defeated after their failure in the Tet of 68 offensive. Walter Cronkite broadcast it as a win for the North and they saw the weak link, the American Public, primarily the anti-war left. After 1968, they played to teh left and engaged us in very little direct battle. When they did, they were again defeated.

They bidded their time awaiting public opinion to turn, as they knew it would. We abandoned an ally and have been doing it ever since, giving America the reputation of a country that cannot be counted on.

Your "visionaries" prolonged the war, they did not shorten it. Add some 40,000 names to "the Wall" because instead of negotiating a surrender, as some believe Giap was preparing to do, he hung on and once we left, waited a little longer and just waltzed in to take over.

Think of the massive loss of live afterwards due to "re-education" camps, boat people and even teh Cambodian killing fields as surrounding nations also fell to Communism.

That is the legacy of the anti-war left.

Posted by: Lew Waters [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 23, 2006 03:33 PM

That is the legacy of the anti-war left.

Debate is good, but keep it honest. Kissinger and Nixon negotiated a peace agreement in January 1973. The agreement gave the U.S 60 days to get its troops out of South Vietnam. You are correct a lot of young people died needlessly.

Today your cheap Wal-Mart shorts are probably made in Vietnam. You should be thanking the anti war movement.

Posted by: Josh Keaton at October 23, 2006 08:04 PM

McGovern's a kook; Murtha's a kook, Josh Keaton's a kook.

Comparison works for me, as well...

Posted by: 1H8L1BS [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 23, 2006 08:27 PM

Josh, I have 35 years of receiving crap from the left and an unthankful nation that can't make up their mind whether I am a ticking time bomb or a hapless victim. It doesn't occur to them that I am neither. I as well as many others, are Veterans that served proudly.

You really should read the Paris Peace Accords before you run off at the mouth about them. We pressured South Viet Nam into accepting them, with promises of our support. Support that was denied and refused by the Democrat controlled Congress in 1975.

In your misled state of mind, you fail to see that the North was all but defeated in 1968 after their forces were so heavily decimated by their failed Tet of '68 Offensive. It could have ended there but the it was the anti-war left that kept it going by showing the North how to defeat America.

Former KGB agents have revealed they fed the anti-war left propaganda to stir them up and keep them protesting, undermining the war effort first by Johnson, then by Nixon.

In a 1995 interview published in The Wall Street Journal, former colonel Bui Tin who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975 confirmed the American Tet 1968 military victory: "Our loses were staggering and a complete surprise. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for reelection.

The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to reestablish our presence but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely.

We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was." And on strategy: "If Johnson had granted Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.... it was the only way to bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort involving tens of thousands of
soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations, communication units .... our operations were never compromised by attacks on the trail. At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom .... if all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of time to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest was damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us. And the left: "Support for 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 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement.

Visits to Hanoi by 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 would struggle along with us .... those people represented the conscience of America .... part of it's war- making capability, and we turning that power in our favor."

In the October 2005 edition of VIETNAM magazine, there is an interview with retired North Vietnamese General Nguyen Duc Huy where he is asked, “After the war, Giap told a group of Western reporters that Communist losses in the Tet Offensive were so devastating that if the American forces had kept up that level of Military pressure much longer North Vietnam would have been forced to negotiate a peace on American terms. Do you agree?”

General Huy replied, “If the American army had fought some more, had continued, I don’t know. Maybe. I can’t say what would have happened.”

Found on page 38 in the center of the right column.

Posted by: Lew Waters [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 23, 2006 10:14 PM

Please report any inappropriate comments to abuse (at) blogsforbush (dot) com. Be sure to include the title of the blog entry, the name of the commenter, and the text of the offending comment.

Post a comment




Remember Me?
(you may use HTML tags for style)