Fight or flight?
Slate
by Michael Kinsley
11/26/05
Until last week, the anti-war position in the debate over Iraq closely resembled the pro-war position in the ancient debate over Vietnam. That is: It was a mistake to get in, but now that we're in, we can't just cut and run. That was the logic on which Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger took over the Vietnam War four years after major American involvement began and kept it going for another five. American 'credibility' depended on our keeping our word, however foolish that word might have been. In the end, all the United States wanted was a 'decent interval' between our departure and the North Vietnamese triumph -- and we didn't even get that. Thousands of Americans died in Vietnam after America's citizens and government were in general agreement that the war was a mistake. We are now very close to that point of general agreement in the Iraq war. Do you believe that if Bush, Cheney, and company could turn back the clock, they would do this again?
http://www.slate.com/id/2131029/
Is defeat now an option?
Human Events
by Pat Buchanan
11/28/05
'Is the United States now going to cut and run in Iraq?' asks Bronwen Maddox, foreign editor of the London Times. While the answer from President Bush remains a defiant 'No!' the question is now being raised by the most hawkish of his backers. And understandably so. For John McCain's call for sending 10,000 more troops to Iraq has been met with polite silence, while all signals out of this city point to withdrawal, beginning in 2006, of scores of thousands of U.S. troops, whether the insurgency has been defeated or not, whether an Iraqi democracy is assured or not...
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10521
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
by Michael Kinsley
11/26/05
Until last week, the anti-war position in the debate over Iraq closely resembled the pro-war position in the ancient debate over Vietnam. That is: It was a mistake to get in, but now that we're in, we can't just cut and run. That was the logic on which Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger took over the Vietnam War four years after major American involvement began and kept it going for another five. American 'credibility' depended on our keeping our word, however foolish that word might have been. In the end, all the United States wanted was a 'decent interval' between our departure and the North Vietnamese triumph -- and we didn't even get that. Thousands of Americans died in Vietnam after America's citizens and government were in general agreement that the war was a mistake. We are now very close to that point of general agreement in the Iraq war. Do you believe that if Bush, Cheney, and company could turn back the clock, they would do this again?
http://www.slate.com/id/2131029/
Is defeat now an option?
Human Events
by Pat Buchanan
11/28/05
'Is the United States now going to cut and run in Iraq?' asks Bronwen Maddox, foreign editor of the London Times. While the answer from President Bush remains a defiant 'No!' the question is now being raised by the most hawkish of his backers. And understandably so. For John McCain's call for sending 10,000 more troops to Iraq has been met with polite silence, while all signals out of this city point to withdrawal, beginning in 2006, of scores of thousands of U.S. troops, whether the insurgency has been defeated or not, whether an Iraqi democracy is assured or not...
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10521
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
Starmail - 28. Nov, 19:19
