Kerry Wants Iraq to Become Vietnam

Yesterday, liberal reporter/journalist Helen Thomas, wrote an editorial in the Seattlepi.com site. In this editorial, she blasted John Kerry for agreeing with President Bush's decision to send troops to Iraq.

She claims to be disappointed that John Kerry told America that knowing what he knows today, he still would have voted to give the President authorization to enter Iraq for the same reasons cited by the President.

She calls Kerry a "warmonger" type not much different than Bush.

In her article, she claims that Kerry, should he be elected, should do all he can to bring our troops home and end the war:


"Kerry has talked about drawing down American forces and an eventual pullout.

But he could learn something from two previous wartime Republican presidential candidates who had a better take on the public pulse and won the White House.

In 1952 during the Korean War, Dwight D. Eisenhower made a campaign promise that he would "go to Korea" and end the bloodshed. He did go to Korea and the war ended with a cease-fire standoff months after his inauguration.

In 1968, Richard Nixon said he had a "plan" to end the Vietnam War and the voters, wanting peace, bought it. Nixon -- in part forced by Congress -- reduced the U.S. troop commitment to Vietnam, but U.S. forces were still there when Nixon was forced to resign from office in 1974 because of the Watergate scandal. But the war ended the following year.

These were not triumphal solutions but they did give Americans some hope of eventual escape from the two quagmires." [emphasis mine]

There is, however, a problem with Helen Thomas' logic and memory here. In the excellent book, "Reckless Disregard", Robert Patterson writes that Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer saw the war in Vietnam as still winnable. Our US forces were winning major battles and holding the North Vietnamese back. In 1972, he urged President Nixon to bomb key strategic sites in and around Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor. Nixon agreed to this change from Johnson's policy. The result of this strategic air campaign worked.

On December 18, 1972, the US unleashed its "greatest arsenal assault on the enemy in the history of the war."

The 1972 bombing campaign forced the North Vietnamese to immediately ask for peace. They also began to treat our POW's more humanely. Nixon began to withdraw our troops from Vietnam. His "peace through strength" idea worked.

But, in 1975, when the North Vietnamese invaded South Vietnam again, the Democrats abandoned our ally. After the Watergate scandal and Nixon's resignation, the Democrats voted to "cut off all economic aid to all anti-Communist governments in Cambodia and South Vietnam." Both regimes fell within months after the vote...which lead to mass slaughter of these two countries. Almost 2 million people were murdered at the hands of their new Communist rulers. Nixon is partly to blame for this because of his lack of integrity in his administration. Had he been less concerned for getting relected and more concerned for our involvement in Vietnam, perhaps things would have been different. But, still, the Democrats took political advantage of Nixon's situation and used their new found power to get what they wanted: US troops out of Vietnam no matter what and the Communists allowed to do what they want.

I am sure our early withdrawal from Vietnam made some people feel better. But look at the consequences that were faced by our allies because of the selffishness and ineptitude of the Liberal Democrats in Congress back in 1972-1975.

Helen Thomas was a journalist back then and she is still spewing out the liberal diatribe now.

She wonders why John Kerry would still vote the same way now knowing what he knows about the intelligence and WMD's in Iraq...well, perhaps I can answer her question:

John Kerry said he would vote the same way because he knows that removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right thing to do and he saw what the intelligence said about the WMD's and he knows that Hussein posed a serious threat. But he would rather die than admit it, so he just says that he would still vote to give the President the authority to this day.

So, John Kerry is in a pickle of his own making. He is being pressured to vow to pull our troops out of Iraq after he is elected to please the Liberals who hate war no matter what the reason. And he is being pressured not to pull out the troops because of what happened to our allies after Vietnam and after the Gulf War I (The Kurds were slaughtered by Hussein....). He knows the consequences of both situations:

If he doesn't do what the Libs want, he will lose his base supporters....and possibly lose the election.

If he does do what the Libs want, he could be elected and withdraw our troops leaving the Iraqi people and the ME to be taken over by the terrorists who will attack America in retaliation. Vietnam all over again.

Too bad Helen Thomas is wrong about John Kerry: He is nothing like George W. Bush. Bush isn't led around by popular polls and his base supporters. He knows the consequences of removing our troops from Iraq too soon: mass slaughter of the Iraqi people and losing the ME forever to the terrorist regimes. Bush knows he must stand firm and remain steady during this time of testing because our enemies are watching our every move.

As Robert Patterson points out in his fine book, Osama Bin Laden has been studying our country's military policy since 1993. After the attack on the World Trade Center and Somalia went by without retaliation, he called our military "paper tigers" who cut and run when the casulaties mount and the pressure becomes too intense.

He was right about Clinton's administration, unfortunately. I am sure that Bin Laden would love for a Liberal people pleaser to be elected AGAIN this year so that our troops will once again cut and run.....and leave our allies in the wake of terror once again.

Helen Thomas is definitely wrong: we do have a choice this election. A clear choice indeed.