Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: The McGovern Syndrome

  1. #1
    [url=http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidhorowitz/dh20041227.shtml]The McGovern Syndrome - Surrender is not Peace[/url]

    [b]By David Horowitz[/b]

    On Christmas Day, former U.S. senator and Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern wrote a letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times (and probably many other papers) calling for an American surrender in Iraq. George McGovern has not been in the headlines for three decades, and his name consequently may be unfamiliar to many. But no one has had a greater or more baleful impact on the Democratic Party and its electoral fortunes than this progressive product of the South Dakota plains.

    The leftward slide of the Democratic Party, which has made it an uncertain trumpet in matters of war and peace, may be said to have begun with the McGovern presidential campaign of 1972, whose slogan was “American come home” – as though America was the problem and not the aggression of the Communist bloc. The McGovern campaign drew in the rank and file of the anti-Vietnam Left, much like the anti-Cold War Henry Wallace Progressive Party campaign of 1948 and the Howard Dean anti-Iraq campaign of 2004. McGovern himself was a veteran of the Wallace campaign and, virtually all the leaders of the anti-Iraq movement, including most of the Democratic Party leaders who supported it, are veterans of the anti-Vietnam campaign.

    I have lived this history as both spectator and actor. My parents were Communists, and my first political march was a Communist Party May Day parade in 1948 supporting the presidential campaign of Henry Wallace and the Progressive Party against the Cold War – which meant against America’s effort to contain Communism and prevent Stalin’s regime from expanding its empire into Western Europe. Our chant was this: “One, two, three, four, we don’t want another war/Five, six, seven, eight, win with Wallace in ’48.”

    This campaign was the seed of the antiwar movement of Vietnam, and thus of the political Left’s influence over the post-Vietnam foreign policy of the Democratic Party. The Wallace campaign marked an exodus of the anti-American Left from the Democratic Party; the movement that opposed America’s war in Vietnam marked its return.

    As a post-graduate student at Berkeley in the early Sixties, I was one of the organizers of the first demonstration against the war in Vietnam. It was 1962, and the organizers of this demonstration as of all the major anti-Vietnam demonstrations (and those against the Iraq war as well) were a Marxist and a leftist, respectively. The organizers of the movement against the war in Vietnam were activists who thought the Communists were liberating Vietnam in the same way Michael Moore thinks Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is liberating Iraq.

    In 1968, Tom Hayden and the antiwar Left incited a riot at the Democratic Party convention which effectively ended the presidential hopes of the Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey. (Humphrey, who was Lyndon Johnson’s vice president, was a supporter of the war.) This paved the way for George McGovern’s failed presidential run against the war in 1972.

    The following year, President Nixon signed a truce in Vietnam and withdrew American troops. His goal was “peace with honor,” which meant denying a Communist victory in South Vietnam. The truce was an uneasy one depending on a credible American threat to resume hostilities if the Communists violated the truce.

    Three years earlier, Nixon had signaled an end to the draft, and the massive national antiwar demonstrations had drawn to a halt. But a vanguard of activists continued the war against America’s support for the anti-Communist war effort in Vietnam. Among them were John Kerry, Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden. They held a war crimes tribunal, condemning America’s role in Vietnam, and conducted a campaign to persuade the Democrats in Congress to cut all aid to South Vietnam and Cambodia, thus opening the door for a Communist conquest. When Nixon was forced to resign after Watergate, the Democratic congress cut the aid as their first legislative act. They did this in January 1975. In April, the Cambodian and South Vietnamese regimes fell.

    The events that followed this retreat in Indochina have been all but forgotten by the Left, which has never learned the lessons of Vietnam, but instead has invoked the retreat itself as an inspiration and guide for its political opposition to the war in Iraq. Along with leading Democrats like Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe, George McGovern called for an American retreat from Iraq even before a government could be established to assure the country will not fall prey to the Saddamist remnants and Islamic terrorists: “I did not want any Americans to risk their lives in Iraq. We should bring home those who are there.” Explained McGovern: “Once we left Vietnam and quit bombing its people they became friends and trading partners.”[1]

    Actually, that is not what happened. Four months after the Democrats cut off aid to Cambodia and Vietnam in January 1975, both regimes fell to the Communist armies. Within three years the Communist victors had slaughtered two-and-a-half million peasants in the Indochinese peninsula, paving the way for their socialist paradise. The blood of those victims is on the hands of the Americans who forced this withdrawal: John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, and George McGovern – and antiwar activists like myself.

    It is true that Vietnam eventually became a trading partner (“friend” is another matter). But this was not true that it occurred “once we left and quit bombing its people.” Before that took place, a Republican president confronted the Soviet Union in Europe and Afghanistan and forced the collapse of the Soviet empire. It was only then, after the Cold War enemy and support of the Vietnamese Communists had been defeated, that they accommodated themselves to co-existence with the United States.

    The “blame America first” mentality so manifest in this McGovern statement is endemic to the appeasement mentality that the “progressive” senator so typifies: “Iraq has been nestled along the Tigris and Euphrates for 6,000 years. It will be there 6,000 more whether we stay or leave, as earlier conquerors learned.” In McGovern’s Alice-in-Wonderland universe, Iraq did not invade two countries; use chemical weapons on its Kurdish population; attempt to assassinate a U.S. president; spend tens of billions of dollars on banned weapons programs; aid and abet Islamic terrorists bent on destroying the West; and defy 17 UN resolutions to disarm itself, open its borders to UN inspectors, and adhere to the terms of the UN truce it had signed when its aggression in Kuwait was thwarted.

    During the battle over Vietnam policy thirty years ago, Nixon and supporters of the war effort had warned the antiwar Left of the consequences that would follow if their campaign was successful. If the United States were to retreat from the field of battle, the Communists would engineer a “bloodbath” of revenge and complete their revolutionary design. When confronted by these warnings, George McGovern, John Kerry, and other anti-Vietnam activists dismissed them out of hand. This was just an attempt to justify an imperialist aggression, they assured the public. Time proved the antiwar activists to be tragically, catastrophically wrong, although they have never had the decency to admit it.

    If the United States were to leave the battlefield in Iraq now, before the peace is secured (and thus repeat the earlier retreat), there would be a bloodbath along the Tigris and Euphrates. The jihadists will slaughter our friends, our allies, and all of the Iraqis who are struggling for freedom. Given the nature of the terrorist war we are in, this bloodbath would also flow into the streets of Washington and New York and potentially every American city. The jihadists have sworn to kill us all. People who think America is invulnerable, that America can just leave the field of this battle and there will be peace, do not begin to understand the world we confront.

    Or if they understand it, they have tilted their allegiance to the other side. McGovern’s phrase “as earlier conquerors learned,” speaks volumes about the perverse moral calculus of the progressive Left. To McGovern we are conquerors, which makes the al-Zarqawi terrorists “liberators,” or as Michael Moore would prefer, “patriots.” The Left that wants America to throw in the towel in Iraq is hypersensitive to questions about its loyalties but at the same time can casually refer to our presence in Iraq as an “invasion and occupation.” It wants to use the language of morality, but it only wants the standard to apply in one direction.

    There is no one-dimensional standard, and a politics of surrender is not a politics of peace.

  2. #2
    ok great they have explained what not to do - and i agree to pull out would be wrong...

    but im still waiting for someone to come up with a plan that makes sense for Iraq

    as it stands we are talking about indefinate conflict. fighting for the next decade

    i don't see the fighting getting any lighter do you?

    people talk about WWII and rebuilding Japan, what they don't talk about is the fact that we had to drop 2 A bombs before the Japanese got the idea.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Dec 29 2004, 09:40 AM
    [b] people talk about WWII and rebuilding Japan, what they don't talk about is the fact that we had to drop 2 A bombs before the Japanese got the idea. [/b][/quote]
    wrong...the nepalm is what did hirohitho in.....and if you are familiar with history the reason for dropping the bombs was to save American lives.

    [quote][b]The leftward slide of the Democratic Party, which has made it an uncertain trumpet in matters of war and peace, may be said to have begun with the McGovern presidential campaign of 1972[/b][/quote]

    mcgovern/carter/kerri...it's all the same.

  4. #4
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY+Dec 29 2004, 10:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Come Back to NY @ Dec 29 2004, 10:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-bitonti[/i]@Dec 29 2004, 09:40 AM
    [b] people talk about WWII and rebuilding Japan, what they don&#39;t talk about is the fact that we had to drop 2 A bombs before the Japanese got the idea. [/b][/quote]
    wrong...the nepalm is what did hirohitho in.....and if you are familiar with history the reason for dropping the bombs was to save American lives.
    [/b][/quote]
    you are missing my point which is that you can&#39;t rebuild a country until there is peace - and you can&#39;t have peace unless you completely defeat an enemy.

    not only do we lack a plan for rebuilding, we lack a plan to defeat the enemy - that&#39;s not exactly encouraging...

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Dec 29 2004, 10:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Dec 29 2004, 10:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by Come Back to NY@Dec 29 2004, 10:29 AM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin-bitonti[/i]@Dec 29 2004, 09:40 AM
    [b] people talk about WWII and rebuilding Japan, what they don&#39;t talk about is the fact that we had to drop 2 A bombs before the Japanese got the idea. [/b][/quote]
    wrong...the nepalm is what did hirohitho in.....and if you are familiar with history the reason for dropping the bombs was to save American lives.
    [/b][/quote]
    you are missing my point which is that you can&#39;t rebuild a country until there is peace - and you can&#39;t have peace unless you completely defeat an enemy.

    not only do we lack a plan for rebuilding, we lack a plan to defeat the enemy - that&#39;s not exactly encouraging... [/b][/quote]
    really...well using your theory, how long did the war in the Pacific take?? Who&#39;s missing the point?

  6. #6
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Dec 29 2004, 10:36 AM
    [b]
    really...well using your theory, how long did the war in the Pacific take?? Who&#39;s missing the point? [/b][/quote]
    it&#39;s not at all the same - we are urban fighting guerrilla warfare in IRAQ that has nothing to do with ARMIES and GENERALS and FLAGS and UNIFORMS and BORDERS that were in WWII

    A REAL WAR by the way - DECLARED by congress.

    by the standards of the US consitution this is not a war it&#39;s a loophole.

    ---

    bottom line you still have not answered my question, what is the plan for IRAQ?

    HOW CAN WE WIN?

    HOW CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT THOSE THAT HAVE DIED DID NOT DO SO IN VAIN?

    im sorry but "fighting as long as it takes" is not a plan...

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][b]A REAL WAR by the way - DECLARED by congress. [/b][/quote]

    So when hillary clinton and kerri voted to give the President authority to go to war that meant nothing? ...oh, that&#39;s right- when things aren&#39;t going as smoothly as we like we didn&#39;t really expect him to go to war even though we voted for it. Watch these scum pat themselves on the back after the terrorists are liquidated.

    [quote][b]HOW CAN WE WIN?[/b][/quote]

    You best get on your knees and start bowing to Mecca with that liberal attitude.

    [quote][b]im sorry but "fighting as long as it takes" is not a plan... [/b][/quote]

    it is reality.

  8. #8
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Dec 29 2004, 11:03 AM
    [b]
    So when hillary clinton and kerri voted to give the President authority to go to war that meant nothing? ...[/b][/quote]

    they didn&#39;t vote to go to war... going to WAR is when congress DECLARES war. We haven&#39;t had a real war since WWII - that&#39;s historical fact. The founders of this nation did not put the executive police action clause in the constitution with the intention that every ten years the President would pursue foreign policy all over the globe without declaration of war by congress. It&#39;s a loophole, plain and simple.


    [quote][b]
    [quote][b]HOW CAN WE WIN?[/b][/quote]

    You best get on your knees and start bowing to Mecca with that liberal attitude.[/b][/quote]

    yeah that&#39;s a nice one-liner but i really want to know the answer -

    do we have a plan to subdue the insurgents? do we have a plan to stop suicide bombers? do we have an exit strategy? how can we win?

    we have willpower and we have troops what we don&#39;t have is competant leadership. to those question i would venture "no" on all counts. we are pissing in the wind with this war - point blank it was not planned right and it is still not being fought with a definate goal in mind.

    [quote][b]
    [quote][b]im sorry but "fighting as long as it takes" is not a plan... [/b][/quote]

    it is reality.
    [/b][/quote]

    again i reiterate it is not any sort of plan. It is the reality, yes that&#39;s because the President and his cabinet are incompetant. We have gone to war without any real concrete plan... and there&#39;s no plan forthcoming. Is it reality? yes - but it&#39;s a ****ty reality, not geared toward future success.

  9. #9
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Green Jets & Ham[/i]@Dec 28 2004, 05:01 PM
    [b] [url=http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidhorowitz/dh20041227.shtml]The McGovern Syndrome - Surrender is not Peace[/url]

    [b]By David Horowitz[/b]

    On Christmas Day, former U.S. senator and Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern wrote a letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times (and probably many other papers) calling for an American surrender in Iraq. George McGovern has not been in the headlines for three decades, and his name consequently may be unfamiliar to many. But no one has had a greater or more baleful impact on the Democratic Party and its electoral fortunes than this progressive product of the South Dakota plains.

    The leftward slide of the Democratic Party, which has made it an uncertain trumpet in matters of war and peace, may be said to have begun with the McGovern presidential campaign of 1972, whose slogan was “American come home” – as though America was the problem and not the aggression of the Communist bloc. The McGovern campaign drew in the rank and file of the anti-Vietnam Left, much like the anti-Cold War Henry Wallace Progressive Party campaign of 1948 and the Howard Dean anti-Iraq campaign of 2004. McGovern himself was a veteran of the Wallace campaign and, virtually all the leaders of the anti-Iraq movement, including most of the Democratic Party leaders who supported it, are veterans of the anti-Vietnam campaign.

    I have lived this history as both spectator and actor. My parents were Communists, and my first political march was a Communist Party May Day parade in 1948 supporting the presidential campaign of Henry Wallace and the Progressive Party against the Cold War – which meant against America’s effort to contain Communism and prevent Stalin’s regime from expanding its empire into Western Europe. Our chant was this: “One, two, three, four, we don’t want another war/Five, six, seven, eight, win with Wallace in ’48.”

    This campaign was the seed of the antiwar movement of Vietnam, and thus of the political Left’s influence over the post-Vietnam foreign policy of the Democratic Party. The Wallace campaign marked an exodus of the anti-American Left from the Democratic Party; the movement that opposed America’s war in Vietnam marked its return.

    As a post-graduate student at Berkeley in the early Sixties, I was one of the organizers of the first demonstration against the war in Vietnam. It was 1962, and the organizers of this demonstration as of all the major anti-Vietnam demonstrations (and those against the Iraq war as well) were a Marxist and a leftist, respectively. The organizers of the movement against the war in Vietnam were activists who thought the Communists were liberating Vietnam in the same way Michael Moore thinks Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is liberating Iraq.

    In 1968, Tom Hayden and the antiwar Left incited a riot at the Democratic Party convention which effectively ended the presidential hopes of the Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey. (Humphrey, who was Lyndon Johnson’s vice president, was a supporter of the war.) This paved the way for George McGovern’s failed presidential run against the war in 1972.

    The following year, President Nixon signed a truce in Vietnam and withdrew American troops. His goal was “peace with honor,” which meant denying a Communist victory in South Vietnam. The truce was an uneasy one depending on a credible American threat to resume hostilities if the Communists violated the truce.

    Three years earlier, Nixon had signaled an end to the draft, and the massive national antiwar demonstrations had drawn to a halt. But a vanguard of activists continued the war against America’s support for the anti-Communist war effort in Vietnam. Among them were John Kerry, Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden. They held a war crimes tribunal, condemning America’s role in Vietnam, and conducted a campaign to persuade the Democrats in Congress to cut all aid to South Vietnam and Cambodia, thus opening the door for a Communist conquest. When Nixon was forced to resign after Watergate, the Democratic congress cut the aid as their first legislative act. They did this in January 1975. In April, the Cambodian and South Vietnamese regimes fell.

    The events that followed this retreat in Indochina have been all but forgotten by the Left, which has never learned the lessons of Vietnam, but instead has invoked the retreat itself as an inspiration and guide for its political opposition to the war in Iraq. Along with leading Democrats like Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe, George McGovern called for an American retreat from Iraq even before a government could be established to assure the country will not fall prey to the Saddamist remnants and Islamic terrorists: “I did not want any Americans to risk their lives in Iraq. We should bring home those who are there.” Explained McGovern: “Once we left Vietnam and quit bombing its people they became friends and trading partners.”[1]

    Actually, that is not what happened. Four months after the Democrats cut off aid to Cambodia and Vietnam in January 1975, both regimes fell to the Communist armies. Within three years the Communist victors had slaughtered two-and-a-half million peasants in the Indochinese peninsula, paving the way for their socialist paradise. The blood of those victims is on the hands of the Americans who forced this withdrawal: John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, and George McGovern – and antiwar activists like myself.

    It is true that Vietnam eventually became a trading partner (“friend” is another matter). But this was not true that it occurred “once we left and quit bombing its people.” Before that took place, a Republican president confronted the Soviet Union in Europe and Afghanistan and forced the collapse of the Soviet empire. It was only then, after the Cold War enemy and support of the Vietnamese Communists had been defeated, that they accommodated themselves to co-existence with the United States.

    The “blame America first” mentality so manifest in this McGovern statement is endemic to the appeasement mentality that the “progressive” senator so typifies: “Iraq has been nestled along the Tigris and Euphrates for 6,000 years. It will be there 6,000 more whether we stay or leave, as earlier conquerors learned.” In McGovern’s Alice-in-Wonderland universe, Iraq did not invade two countries; use chemical weapons on its Kurdish population; attempt to assassinate a U.S. president; spend tens of billions of dollars on banned weapons programs; aid and abet Islamic terrorists bent on destroying the West; and defy 17 UN resolutions to disarm itself, open its borders to UN inspectors, and adhere to the terms of the UN truce it had signed when its aggression in Kuwait was thwarted.

    During the battle over Vietnam policy thirty years ago, Nixon and supporters of the war effort had warned the antiwar Left of the consequences that would follow if their campaign was successful. If the United States were to retreat from the field of battle, the Communists would engineer a “bloodbath” of revenge and complete their revolutionary design. When confronted by these warnings, George McGovern, John Kerry, and other anti-Vietnam activists dismissed them out of hand. This was just an attempt to justify an imperialist aggression, they assured the public. Time proved the antiwar activists to be tragically, catastrophically wrong, although they have never had the decency to admit it.

    If the United States were to leave the battlefield in Iraq now, before the peace is secured (and thus repeat the earlier retreat), there would be a bloodbath along the Tigris and Euphrates. The jihadists will slaughter our friends, our allies, and all of the Iraqis who are struggling for freedom. Given the nature of the terrorist war we are in, this bloodbath would also flow into the streets of Washington and New York and potentially every American city. The jihadists have sworn to kill us all. People who think America is invulnerable, that America can just leave the field of this battle and there will be peace, do not begin to understand the world we confront.

    Or if they understand it, they have tilted their allegiance to the other side. McGovern’s phrase “as earlier conquerors learned,” speaks volumes about the perverse moral calculus of the progressive Left. To McGovern we are conquerors, which makes the al-Zarqawi terrorists “liberators,” or as Michael Moore would prefer, “patriots.” The Left that wants America to throw in the towel in Iraq is hypersensitive to questions about its loyalties but at the same time can casually refer to our presence in Iraq as an “invasion and occupation.” It wants to use the language of morality, but it only wants the standard to apply in one direction.

    There is no one-dimensional standard, and a politics of surrender is not a politics of peace. [/b][/quote]
    Have you ever generated an original thought your entire pathetic existence?

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    [quote][b]Have you ever generated an original thought your entire pathetic existence? [/b][/quote]

    Have you ever responded to a post with intelligent retort without all the insults?

  11. #11
    [quote][i]Originally posted by JetFanTransplant[/i]@Jan 5 2005, 06:16 PM
    [b] [quote][b]Have you ever generated an original thought your entire pathetic existence? [/b][/quote]

    Have you ever responded to a post with intelligent retort without all the insults? [/b][/quote]
    How do you respond to a neo-fascist? How do you respond to someone who gets his information from right wing fundamentalist religious nuts? You don&#39;t--You just inform them of their total lack of training in the liberal arts and you move on. Now go analyze the football game--thats your speed.

  12. #12
    TomShane
    Guest
    As usual, the Tom Shane plan is quite simple (as is Tom Shane). It looks like this:

    1) Pull out altogether and forget we were there.

    -or-

    2) Nuke the s**t out of it and be done with it. Apologize to France later.



    What confounds me is that we seem to be p***y-footing over there, just figuratively standing around and letting under-armed troops get picked off. Enough of this guerilla warfare bull****. Just get it over with for Christ&#39;s sake. It&#39;s not like we&#39;re coming out of this looking like humanists anyway.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    [quote][i]Originally posted by rextilleon+Jan 5 2005, 08:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (rextilleon @ Jan 5 2005, 08:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JetFanTransplant[/i]@Jan 5 2005, 06:16 PM
    [b] [quote][b]Have you ever generated an original thought your entire pathetic existence? [/b][/quote]

    Have you ever responded to a post with intelligent retort without all the insults? [/b][/quote]
    How do you respond to a neo-fascist? How do you respond to someone who gets his information from right wing fundamentalist religious nuts? You don&#39;t--You just inform them of their total lack of training in the liberal arts and you move on. Now go analyze the football game--thats your speed. [/b][/quote]
    The anger in you is astounding. Seriously, there must be something deeper going on here. Have you been abused in some manner? I really think you need some help. Seriously. Get some help.

  14. #14
    thats a weird syndrome&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us