I remember when General Westmoreland gave an optimistic report to Congress about "winning" the Vietnam War in 1967. A few years later I was required by law to apply to the Selective Service and get my Vietnam War draft card. America has heard it all before from an optimistic general, and years later we're still stuck in the same quagmire. Some things just never change.

Livin' Large in the past PH, huh?

This isn't Vietnam, Paul.

Remember? McCarther gave a similar assessment in WWII regarding the Philippines.

I can't recall, but did he return, or not?

It's what generals do. To compare Westmoreland and Petreaus and come to your conclusion denotes a sorry-assed and convenient knowledge of history.

Well, if you want to compare the left's continual kicking the shins of our military, well, maybe you have a point.

At least we don't have hippies calling our returning troops "baby-killers' this go 'round.

By the way, in order to stick a fork in the "We lost Vietnam" BS. You can buy a Big Mac in Hanoi. I'm thinking we won that war.

Yes, they are running scared to death of any success on the ground in Iraq, which is precisely why they are desperately trying to surrender and get out before the military can stabilize the security situation and before the Iraqis reach political accommodation. They need defeat and disaster, and they need it in time to blame it all on Bush.

However, Democrats have not run on an antiwar platform nationally yet. In 2004, Kerry was straddling the fence between the invasion being a bad idea and that he could conduct the war better and get out faster. Dean was the "antiwar" candidate, and he lost. Even Edwards was still a hawk. In 2006, NONE of the Democrats who won Republican-held seats campaigned on a timetable for withdrawal. In fact, they ALL specifically denied they were in favor of such and said they only wanted "to do it better" to end the war faster.

Of course, they were lying through their teeth like the scurvy knaves they are, and immediately voted for what they said they opposed, BUT they did NOT campaign on that. The only Democrats who did were those running for "safe" seats, except for Lamont in Connecticut - who lost.

So this year, a Presidential year, will be the first time the Democrats have run nationally on an antiwar platform. They are pretty much stuck with it, since all of their potential Presidential nominees are now against the war and in favor of surrender and defeat. The down-ticket will also rise or fall with Iraq. That will be THE issue this cycle.

I've followed politics since 1960, and studied the history of prior campaigns. I cannot recall a single election where the American people voted to lose a war. Will next year be the first?

Its easy to compare Westmoreland and Petraeus. All it takes is complete ignorance of both men.

Confronted with reality, Paul Hussain is forced to cry "Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam" because he nothing else to say.

PH, didn't you get the memo? The 60's are ancient history. The time from now to the 60's is the time from the 60's to prohibition. What you think about prohibition is not as bad as what I think about the 60's. You might as well be talking about the evils of Coolidge and his laissez-faire style. LOL, old man...

God god almighty that's all our dimwit president [b]ush did all last week and the week before. , compare this folly to Vietnam. Do you righties just get your information from one another's slavering comments? No doubt you do.

Five years after Westmoreland gave his optimistic 1967 report to Congress we were still in Vietnam. Five years after Petraeus gave his optimistic 2007 report to Congress, we'll still be in Iraq.

Mark my words and post it on your refrigerator door to remind yourself of it five years from now.

Those who fail to learn from History,

Help Americans decide to vote Republican.

Of course we'll be in Iraq in 5 years. Hell, we're still in South Korea.

Did you not read/listen to Petreaus' report? He's already said we'd be there for a while.

Methinks your crystal ball looks a lot like a tv.

Oh, and five years after Westmoreland made his '67 comments, we were still in Vietnam, yes. A year later, we left.

I'm sorry, what was your point, again?

And, honestly ..., you say you got your draft card, but didn't state when. When did you get your draft card? Dec of '72?

Sure, it would be a real surprise if California got into play for 2008 but if it does, the Democrats are done.

This statement is living proof that all Wizbang authors should be subject to mandatory drug-testing.

Besides your shocking ignorance of the California political scene you seem to have also sidestepped the fact that the Democrats and Ron Paul are raising heaps of money from people in the military.

I live under the flight path of MCAS Miramar and I work close to Camp Pendleton. I know a thing or two about what military people really think of this war. A buddy of mine is scheduled to go back to Iraq for his FIFTH tour soon. I can't even describe the look on his and his wife's face when he told me that. I can assure it wasn't one of wild enthusiasm. If I had to guess my buddy will be throwing the lever for the guys with the "DEM" next to their names in 2008.

John Kerry beat (the incumbent) Bush in California by 1.2 million votes. That's 54-45% and is easily considered a landslide by most people. I can assure we won't see a single Presidential candidate in California next year. It's not even remotely in play.

Yo, the American presense in Vietnam ended with the fall of Saigon in 1975 and Americans and Vietnamese fleeing the U.S. Embassy. My 18th birthday was in August 1973, two years before the fall of Saigon. My dad served in Korea in 1950. Vietnam was the war of my generation. And Iraq is the quagmire war of this generation. Iraq will still be a major issue with the next president. I'm certain of that.

JFO the idiot: "God god almighty that's all our dimwit president [b]ush did all last week and the week before. , compare this folly to Vietnam."

Uh, not quite.

The comparison the President made was between the results of our abandoning South Vietnam and the inevitable results of a possible abandoning of Iraq to Al Qaeda and other extremist groups.

That was the comparison.

There was absolutely no comparison to operational tactics or overall military strategy.

None.

But since JFO is a complete ignoramus in military matters (much like Hoosen, but not as bad as Paul "almost a PhD" Hoosen), I'm not surprised he made the mistake that he did.

Barney: "DJ, you mean the terrorist warlord Bush met with two weeks ago, praised in his speech last night and was blown-up by al Qaeda yesterday?"

Hmmm. Note to Self: "sometimes casualites occur in war."

It's interesting to note the almost gleeful tone in Barney's post about the Sunni tribal leader who turned against Al Qaeda.

Not surprising though.

Drago, at some point the U.S. will abandon Iraq no matter the political party of the president and the worse possible things will happen such as more Iranian involvement. When Britain withdrew in Basra recently, then rival Shiite militia groups, some armed by Iran went on to battle with each other. Iran owns the most powerful militias in Iraq and has the most to gain there.

I'm not happy with the 2003 Iraq War, but the eventual future withdrawal by U.S forces due to political reality will only result in more deaths and suffering in Iraq as well. There's nothing good about war.

Paul, we are also still in Germany and Japan...and South Korea. By your logic we should evacuate those occupied nations. HEY thats not a bad idea!

libtards...

Thats all i gots to say about that

Paul,

You got me. I meant "on our way out" ('72); but, what I meant to type doesn't count: point Paul.

Now, having said that, in January of '73, Nixon called off further offensive actions in Vietnam - effectively ending our military involvement.

Based on such, I find it interesting that you use your possession of having a draft card to lend credence to your original argument, but you weren't in any danger of actually being drafted.

Additionally, I find it interesting that you consider Vietnam the war of your generation and then call Iraq a quagmire.

Iraq, like Korea, will be a problem for the next few presidents, I'm afraid.

Side note: props to your dad for his service.

"There's nothing good about war."

There's one thing that's actually worse: abandoning a war before it's completed based on political power maneuvers, only to return against a more powerful enemy, down the road.

If the current Iraq war is, as you say, a quagmire, the resulting Iranian conflict in 5 years will be much, much worse. And, you can mark my words: many more American soldiers will die if we get to that point (not to mention Israel and other parts of the region being turned into glowing piss-holes).

Hooson, you've so discredited yourself and proved yourself an asshole so many times, why do you keep babbling?

You clearly are an ignorant fool just repeating the latest Dem talking points.

Paul the complete historically illiterate mo: "There's nothing good about war."

Yeah, except for American Independence, ending slavery by force and keeping the union together, ending imperial Japanese ambitions, and defeating Nazism, war hasn't really accomplished much.

I mean, Paul has a point. After all, has War ever bought a brand new Pony for an orphan at Boys Town? Huh? Has it?? I didn't think so. And has War ever had it's picture on a bubblegum card?? How can War be good if it never had it's picture on a bubblegum card??

Gee Paul, thanks for your "insight".

Paul, you continue to impress me as the single, most ignorant poster on military matters I've ever read on the blogs. Your ignorance has been exposed so often, in so many forums, that it's extraordinary that you will still cut and paste on military matters.

Amazing.

And, for the record, I think DJ is out of his mind if he thinks any republican can get to within 10 points of any Dem in California during a General Election.

This statement is living proof that all Wizbang authors should be subject to mandatory drug-testing.

Larkin, Larkin Larkin... Do you really want to open that can of worms?

Last time you did, it took me 7 minutes to prove you whre a bigger asshole than Hooson. Now if you'd like to take a stroll over to Blue and see what you children are up to, I'll be happy to...

You won't like the results. Trust me.

Uhh, Drago, not that I'm impressed with losing by 9 points in a state, but W lost California to Kerry in '04 by that margin. Barney called that a "landslide", which speaks a bit about his goal posts, but it certainly means that since it happened in just the last election, and since the Republican has gained in popular vote share in California for each of the last three Presidential elections, a man would not at all be "out of his mind" to observe that simple math.

Ahh, but I forget - you are in Denial, with all of the other four stages yet to come.

Paul Hooson, of course there will still be troops in the region for years to come. Look at Europe, Korea, etc. That is the way it goes. What an idiot. Now if you were to say the war will still be going on for years to come, I disagree with that. JFO, your comment was too stupid to debate.

So Paul and you lefty loons are saying that the good General is lying and betraying our country? How sweet. ww

DJ: "Ahh, but I forget - you are in Denial, with all of the other four stages yet to come."

(Stamping Feet) "I'm not in denial!! I'm not!! Really!!" Heh.

Seriously, ok, I stand corrected. Bush got to within 9 points.

But DJ, all the trends on future electoral strength are going the other way for Repubs in CA.

As a military brat who grew up in California (Bay Area and San Diego), who also spent 4 years of my Navy career in California, who still has untold numbers of acquaintenances up and down the state, I still say we are not going to win in California.

Larkin,

(and, I'm still on board for Wiz-Chicago gig, if we can round up some folk), you said something that piqued the interest:

"Democrats and Ron Paul are raising heaps of money from people in the military."

Ron Paul money, I'm sorry. While it spends nicely on Boardwalk, doesn't do much in the real world.

As for the "heaps of money" coming from the military, I saw that report (or, a report) that I wish I could link to, but the amount of money was $19,000.

Hardly a heap.

larkin quoth:
"you seem to have also sidestepped the fact that the Democrats and Ron Paul are raising heaps of money from people in the military."

You're going off of that story this week, right?

Where the "heaps of money" was a bit larger than the Republican cash, but the whole thing was based on a VERY small number of donors, and the overall income of ALL military political donations was a bit smaller than the amount Hsu corralled for the Dems this year alone.

The number one Democrat getting money from the military in that report was Obama, who got donations of $200 or more from less than one hundred thirty-five actual donors.

That's not a sample size, either - it's the total cash and total number of people giving donations large enough ($200 or more) to record in that particular FEC statistic.

In other words, among people who cared enough to give more than $200 to a Presidential candidate, the biggest recipient managed to scrape up less than 135 out of 2.2 million military members, and all of them together managed les than 1000.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, there. It also doesn't cover the much-larger pool of military donors who gave less than that (Republican Party donations tend to be smaller per donation, but they get donations from more people).

The report also fails in the "too many qualifiers" category. Any time someone has to use more than two qualifiers for a news story, it's bogus. So the "this year" "over $200" "recorded as military" "before the actual campaign starts" qualifier set kills it as a serious statistic.

Found it.

The 19k was the contribution to Paul.

$330k is what the military seems to be giving to the Dems, this go round (so far).

Still, neither is a heap.

http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=300

(I'm off my game today)

Drago, three quick points, 'cause I gotta go get my daughter from daycare:

1. The GOP candidate has been closing for 3 POTUS elections, despite expectations that the opposite would happen.

2. The military, when it votes, votes GOP for POTUS. And if they come home in '08, then a whole lot will be stationed in California, and will therefore vote there. An anomolous event, but significant for the moment.

3. The GOP does not have to take California for it to matter; if they start getting close, the Donk will have to spend resources there, and that costs them in true Battleground states.

Gotta love that!

I don't disagree with the idea of attacking blue states to spread the Dems money thinner.

Larkin:

you seem to have also sidestepped the fact that the Democrats and Ron Paul are raising heaps of money from people in the military.

And your proof of this is what?

Easy to say but I suspect much harder to come up with a credible source.

Crazy
Who smeared Kerry?

JFO:

"God god almighty that's all our dimwit president [b]ush did all last week and the week before. , compare this folly to Vietnam."

Remind me again who it was that couldn't possibly run on a Senate record that included 5 whole bills authored in nearly 20 years of service son he had "Report for Duty?"

And it's not like the Dems, or more precisely their Masters, don't spend any time living in the past. They wallow in it. Not to mention make shit up to sooth their own overinflated egos.