Vietnam

Sometimes, David Sarasohn deserves further comment. At least he is capable of a reality check that seems to be lacking in recent ads, blogs or web sites devoted to an unending war in the Middle East. GW, who never went to Vietnam, thought we should have an unending war there to guarantee what wouldn't happen to the Vietnamese people. Precisely those Vietnamese people who represented what the Viet Cong fought against, symbols of occupation v their nationalist tendencies. Which the indicators are, GW knew nothing about that. But then, GW never served. And because GW never served, he didn't have personal lessons to draw upon when dragging America into a war of choice in Iraq. I leave to Sarasohn to describe GW's unending and ever changing excuses as to why we needed to be in Iraq, now including Vietnam.

Referring to the ads: They have been playing on the CNN (cable/satellite) channel for awhile. Attacking Congress as "defeatist" for wanting to quit too soon in Iraq. The terrorists will be out to get us. Well, unlike the Cold War with the Soviet Union (eventually it began collapsing under its own weight); terrorists aren't inspired by any single ideology and a willingness to control the world with an organized army operating from a single state. What we have a problem with regarding terrorism, is our constant desire to play into their hands and give them justification for continuing to attack us and our interests or even our allies. An unending war in Iraq assures a heavy supply of recruits to the cause of Jihad. An unending war in Iraq also assures that we don't have the available resources to counter terrorism when it again strikes in this country, as it most assuredly will. Don't you just love living in a country where a leftist faction pushes propaganda that fails to take facts into account?