4 Dec 2005

Useful Fools


Desperate in her attempts to create a bogus "Vietnam" syndrome over Iraq, Eleanor Clift sounds like Lady HawHaw in her Newsweek piece, “Who’s Fooling Whom”.

Subtitled
‘The latest Marine deaths are another sign that Bush can’t keep fooling the public about the cost of staying in Iraq’, Clift leads with typical MSM disinformation. In anyone’s recollection, Bush has never spared the American public the cost, sacrifice and duration of the Iraq war or war on terror generally. Even his detractors would admit this.

The Jihadis can still win in Iraq through propaganda, war-weariness by the coalition and intimidation. Journalists like Clift seem to have no qualms in aiding this process.



It's not that Democratic party members can't figure out that Iraq and Vietnam are quite different. It's rather that the baby-boomer wing of them wants to bask in the heady deja vu of Vietnam war protests and to search for GWB rhymes to fit in with a new version of "Hey,Hey,LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today?". Scratchings like Clift's are pure nostalgia for the quaqmire, a retro fantasy of a politically mis-spent youth. Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda has just moved in to the condo next door. Welcome to the 21st century.

Clift also writes approvingly that under Saddam, Iraq was able to “take care” of “their own security”. This is breathtaking and cruel ignorance – or slick Saddamist propaganda. Saddam took very good “care” of his security at the rate of about
100 civilians murdered a day, plus igniting two regional wars that killed over a million people. We used to have Hanoi Jane Fonda. Now we have Baghdad Eleanor Clift.


Ms. Clift sees "Gold Star" mother
Cindy Sheehan as a pivotal "turning point" of the Vietnam syndrome she would like to induce. Sheehan has been exposed in detail as a plaything of professional communist and radsoc manipulators. MSM drudges like Clift never bother with such facts. When the rantings of a moonbat who thinks the jihadis who killed her son are "freedom fighters" comes to represent American mainsteam thinking, I'll buy Ms. Clift lunch for a month.


Some of us were around in the Vietnam war. The only resemblance between it and Vietnam is that
bullets get used. Unlike Vietnam, the enemy in Iraq fully intends to attack the USA globally and internally, something that never occurred to the Viet Cong and NVA fighting for control of Vietnam. Neither did Ho Chi Minh threaten to command the world’s energy supply. Unlike the Vietnamese communists, the support for insurgency is not by giants like China or Russia but Islamists and their useful idiots in the Western pressocracy.

Robowriters
like Clift, will soon, thanks to the New Media, be history tomorrow……… instead of the fading headliners they are today.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

You say that the enemy in Iraq intends to attack the USA...but why? There were no Iraqis among the 9/11 attackers. No Iraqi was ever involved in a terrorist attack against the US until after we invaded.

While you say you were "around" during Vietnam, like all of the conservative pundits from whom you get your opinions, you probably found some way to avoid being part of the war. You're just another coward who hides behind brave men and tells them to kill the people that scare you.

You quote a statistic that Saddam killed 100 civilians a day...but where does that come from? What are your sources? I challenge you to tell us all how many Iraqi civilians WE kill every day. You can't, because those numbers are carefully controlled. Not that it matters...if it turns out we kill 100 civilians a day (which is probably not far from the mark) you will just change your argument.

Cowards like you and your "Brave New Media" mean the end of everything that was ever great about America. Why don't you stay in Kenya, and invite your family to move there with you?

Anonymous said...

I'm so sick of the insinuation / accusation that anybody who objects to this war is either: a) an unpatriotic commy liberal or b) aiding the enemy. If recognizing the emperor has no clothes makes it tough for him to move about in public (and make flowery speeches), that's an unfortunate consequence of going around without any clothes - not the fault of the citizens who point that out.

I am also fed up with those who are willing to demonize conscientious objectors like Cindy Sheehan. What did you call her? A Moonbat. I have no patience for folks like you who, rather than engage in serious debate, try to tear people down with labels and name calling. Whatever one's opinion, I think it's great that Cindy is out there mobilizing for what she believes is right. What have YOU done? What is YOUR sacrifice?

Orwells_Ghost said...

My sacrifice is to type my blog in my time at my expense, to counter those who wish to undermine the existential battle America, as leader of the free world, faces...on all levels.

My blog provides links, facts,figures,arguments and opinions. Would you like me to Post of when Cindy Sheehan met GWB and called him sincere, a good man and someone concerned for the troops? I have the links to the news agency stories.

abraxas said...

Please accept the possibility, Mr Orwellsghost that you have been lied to. Cindy Sheehan believed the lie too, before she saw the hypocracy.
She was arrested in the capitol this week (again) for wearing an anti war t-shirt at a bush speech.
That is repression. Ask yourself why.