Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

03 September 2013

Democrats, War & Revisionist History

Sure.  Just like you did after the Shah, Saddam, Mubarak, and Qaddafi. /

'Learn your history…'
libfreeordie on September 3, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Let’s remember what you will never hear from liveenslavedthendie and his revisionist historians. He will tell you that it was Reagan that taught Islamic terrorists that they could attack the US with impunity. As is usually the case, he presents cherrypicked data.

Islamic terrorists learned from Carter that they could do whatever they like without being forced to pay a price. Other than a too small-to-work disastrous rescue mission, for 444 days, Jimmy Carter did nothing.
A few weeks after 11 September 2001, Berkeley professor and journalist, Mark Danner, wrote a piece for the Los Angeles Times predicting America’s defeat in Afghanistan. His aim was to erode the resolve of Americans. He did this by reminding them that they should be afraid and demoralised. American foreign policy, he said, was a story of “bluster and flight and uneasy forgetting.” To demonstrate the accuracy of his admonition, he cited the following examples:
1) The Bay of Pigs (Kennedy)

2) Vietnam (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and congressional Democrats who refused to enforce the peace treaty)

3) The Iranian Hostage Crisis (Carter)

4) The Beirut embassy and barracks bombings in 1983 (Reagan)

5) The abandonment of Mogadishu, Somalia, after the deaths of 18 American service members (Clinton)

His examples were meant to drive fear into the hearts of Americans telling them that their country could not follow through, would be the oppressor, and would leave in humiliation at an indescribable cost in blood and treasure. (He turned out to be basically correct, but for other reasons.)

Apart from the withdrawal of troops from Lebanon, all of these foreign policy debacles occurred under Democratic presidents. Even Lebanon was a policy with deep Liberal support because US troops were part of an international peacekeeping force (no bullets) created in 1982 and sent there to oversee the withdrawal of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

Soon after American barracks were bombed, Liberals in Congress set to work drafting a joint resolution demanding that Reagan pull the Marines out of Beirut. 

‘We must not lose sight of the fact that the Lebanese problem cannot be solved by itself, but must be tackled in the context of a wider accommodation between Syria and Israel, which the United States should actively mediate.’ 

- Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser calling for retreat

In keeping with their preemptive surrender monkey policy, all seven Democratic presidential candidates urged that the troops be removed from Lebanon.

They weren’t alone either.


- Senator Joe Biden 

‘The Marines don’t know why they’re there and the American people don’t know why they’re there.’ 

- Speaker Tip O’Neill saying that the Lebanon policy had failed 

‘The latest thing in Lebanon proves absolutely that it’s futile and hopeless to have these people stationed in Lebanon. There’s no possible way we can achieve stability.’ 

- Rep. Mike Lowry (D-WA) 


- Rep. Ted Weiss (D-NY) 

‘What concerns me is that while we have withdrawal of the Marines, we’ll have an increase in the firing.’ 

- Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-RI), claiming that the military’s use of force was a total shock 

Evidently, he thought the primary role of the military is humanitarian in nature. 

Reagan had said that he wasn’t going to listen to the ‘This War Is Lost’ Party,” but he did. Reagan began to withdraw American troops, while simultaneously bombing Syrian-controlled areas that were firing into Beirut and on US service members. Democrats complained about that, too. 

Democrats had voted for deploying American troops to Lebanon, but claimed they didn’t know that this meant American forces were authorised to fight back. (Yeah, I know! I know! The United States is such an evil country that, in the interest of reciprocity and atonement, it must lose so that others can be victorious). 

Speaker O’Neill denounced Reagan’s policy of bombing Syrian artillery positions, saying the bombing was 'absolutely not' within the authorisation Congress granted Reagan under the Lebanon War Powers Resolution. 

Typical of the 'This War Is Lost' Party: They were for it before they were against it. 

They were for the Korean War before they were against it. 

They were for the Vietnam War before they were against it. 

They were for the Shah of Iran before they were against him. 

They were for the Ayatollah Khomeini before they were against him. 

They were for the Lebanon War Powers Resolution before they were against it. 

They were for the Persian Gulf War before they were against it. 

They were for the Afghanistan War before they were against it. 

They were for the Iraq War before they were against it. 

They were for Qaddafi (see Obama’s visit, for one example, and his becoming the first American President to shake the hand of the Lypsynka of Libya, for another) before they were against him. 

They were for Mohammed Morsi and the MoFoBros before they were against them (although, to be fair, some still support both). 

They were for Bashar al-Assad before they were against him.

It should come as no surprise that the Democratic Party, which passed the Case-Church Amendment while American troops were in the jungles of Vietnam, would call for retreat. Danner’s entire summary of Vietnam in the aforementioned article is: 
‘the panicked retreat from Saigon in 1975.’

He also seemed to forget that the Vietnam War did not start in 1975. Like many, he made much hay about of the fact that the surrender and retreat happened on Gerald Ford’s watch; yet, he omits the fact that Liberals had demanded that withdrawal and denied funds much earlier.
Liberals will ALWAYS treat a war started by Kennedy, lost by Johnson, ended by Nixon, and last troop removed by Ford as a ‘Republican’ war. Since the Korean War, Liberals will ONLY take credit for conflict when the troops are building playgrounds and passing out chocolates. In other words, for ‘humanitarian reasons.’ Such wars are incapable of being lost because, they will argue, ‘It would have been worse if we had done nothing.’ (Bullets? Surely, you jest. We don’t need no stinkin’ bullets. Send daisies!). To prove this point, let’s recall what Biden said:

‘I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.’

Of course, he also ‘bet his Vice-Presidency’ that Iraq would agree to a new SOFA that would leave up to 30,000 American troops there. We know that Biden isn’t a man of his word since he failed and has not resigned.

Obama opposed the Iraq War and Biden voted against it. They were against it before they were for it when it began to look like a victory and a great humanitarian effort.

‘Bush’s Bad War’ has become ‘Obama’s Good War’ and will become ‘one of the great achievements of the Obama administration (except now it is heading toward civil war).’

Afghanistan was ‘Obama’s Good War.’ Since it hasn’t been going well, ‘Obama’s Good War’ has become ‘Bush’s Bad War.’

Lost or possibly lost war: They will be for it before they are against it.

Won or winning war: They will be against it before they are for it.

Fortunately for the surrender monkeys, if their red (Socialism) flags get washed with their white (Surrender Monkey) flags, they will have pink flags to use at the next CodePink protest because THOSE COLOURS DO RUN!

PS:  On the 'Reagan funded al-Qaeda' front, history intervenes, too...

You need to go back to Carter. Funding started in 1979.

The CIA’s role in laying the foundations of Al Qaeda is confirmed in an 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who at the time was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter:

Brzezinski: According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, [on] 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion, this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?

('The CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan, Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser,' Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998, published in English, Centre for Research on Globalisation,, 5 October 2001, italics added.)

See Also:


No comments: