Gay Patriot Header Image

Iraq IS Vietnam — To Democrats and the News Media

Jack Kelly writes a spot-on piece at RealClearPolitics about the Leftist propaganda war in Vietnam and now in Iraq. (Read the whole thing!!) (h/t – PajamasMedia)

The one great similarity between Vietnam and Iraq is that our enemies, despairing of victory on the battlefield, sought to win with a propaganda campaign. In Vietnam, this strategy succeeded. If it fails in Iraq, it will be chiefly because of the emergence of the new media.

The Tet Offensive proved catastrophic to our plans,” said Truong Nhu Tang, minister of justice in the Viet Cong’s provisional government, in a 1982 interview. “Our losses were so immense we were unable to replace them with new recruits.”The news media reported this overwhelming American victory as a catastrophic defeat.
“Donning helmet, Mr. Cronkite declared the war lost,” recounted UPI’s Arnaud de Borchgrave. “It was this now famous television news piece that persuaded President Lyndon Johnson…not to run for re-election.”

Shaken by Tet, he planned to seek terms for a conditional surrender, the North Vietnamese commander, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, wrote in his memoirs. But our news media’s complete misrepresentation of what had actually happened “convinced him America’s resolve was weakening and complete victory was within Hanoi’s grasp,” Mr. de Borchgrave said.

Journalists are repeating in Iraq the errors (or worse) they made in Vietnam. Earlier this month, the Army sponsored a conference for retired general officers at Fort Carson, Colorado. They were addressed by recent returnees from Iraq, including Col. H.R. McMaster, commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.

“All returnees agreed we are clearly winning the fight against the insurgents but are losing the public relations battle,” said a retired admiral in an email to friends.

The relentless drumbeat of negativity has had its effect on support for the war in Iraq. But it’s been nothing like the change in public opinion brought about by the massive media mendacity that followed Tet. That’s because in those days journalists could lie with impunity. This is no longer the case. 

It really makes you question — do American Liberals and their co-conspirators in the American news media want us to lose in Iraq?  And if we do, are they prepared to face the consequences of that loss by a resurgent al-Qaeda that will strike our allies and our nation?

Imagine if FDR had to fight World War Two with the entire American news media and the opposition party in Congress cheering against him and instead providing our secret war plans to the enemy (Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan).

That is precisely what is going on now in our War on Terror.  What I’d like to know is why no one in the Bush Administration has the guts to start charging folks at the New York Times and in certain Democrat Senate offices with treason and sedition?

It is time to take the gloves off and allow our troops to win the war and not allow the Democrats and the news media to lose the war deliberately….again.

**UPDATE** – Of all people, Andrew Sullivan agrees with my conclusion in this post!

But if we do pull out too soon, and Maliki is too weak to survive, we will have to deal with the Jihadist-riddled failed state that may emerge (and already has emerged in an embryonic form) in Iraq. Those forces will not decide to leave us alone because we have left. if anything, the reverse is true. They will claim victory and press the war further onto our shores and elsewhere. The one thing we have to keep in mind is that, however screwed up the Iraq policy has become, the enemy has not gone away. Withdrawal from Iraq would not mean that this existential struggle is over. It would mean that the enemy has been strengthened and ready to take the war against the West (and “heretical” Islam) to a more lethal stage.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

The Enemy Within

(Hat tip: Michelle Malkin


-Bruce (GayPatriot)

The New York Times‘ Adversarial Attitude to its own Government

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:47 am - June 24, 2006.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Media Bias,War On Terror

When Mary Cheney was on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, she echoed a point she made in her most excellent book, Now It’s My Turn : A Daughter’s Chronicle of Political Life that while she disagreed with the president on the Federal Marriage Amendment, the War on Terror was a more important issue. She so articulated the essence of my support for President Bush. Upset that he had announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment on February 24, 2004, I refused to vote for him in the California Republican primary the following week; I wrote in Rudy Giuliani instead.

But, as the campaign progressed and John Kerry failed to convince me that he had a plan to win the War on Terror and as I was reminded of the president’s steadfast leadership in that endeavor, I returned to my original support of President George W. Bush. The New York Times publication of another clandestine surveillance program offered further proof of the wisdom of my choice.

Within 10 days after the attacks of 9/11, the president had already put a plan into place to trace the financial transactions of terrorists. This shows that while he may have been initially stunned by the attacks, within days of this unforeseen catastrophe, he and his team were already developing plans to track down those villains who would do us harm before they could realize their terrible plans. This particular program helped capture the most wanted Al Qaeda operative in Southeast Asia.

As the program reveals how quickly — and responsibly — the president (and his team) acted, I believe that the publication of this information is close to treasonous. Watching “Special Report” on FoxNews tonight, I learned that in addition to the president, both the chair and the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission (i.e., a Republican as well as a Democrat) asked the paper not to publish the article because it could jeopardize this important tool in the War on Terror (confirming what Trace Phelps had said in a comment to my previous post on the topic).

In light of such revelations, Mort Kondracke said the decision of the paper’s editors showed the “totally adversarial attitude of the New York Times to its own government,” adding that it had to be “based in Bush-hatred.”

I write this post, in part, because I fear that some may have misunderstood the intended sarcasm of my previous post. I wrote in haste and don’t think I succeeded.

Let me conclude by repeating my two basic points ont this story; (1) it shows that the president is fully committed to the War On Terror, acting to catch terrorists before they harm us and so protect Americans, (2) the New York Times is more interested in attacking George W. Bush than in the promoting the security of the United States.

That paper has shown so little respect for the government which protects its freedom to criticize it.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest):