<< JOHN McHOWARD ~ MAIN ~ BILL & JOHN >>
1967 NYT CITED
Dennis Glover wrote a few days ago about the sinister means by which we conservative attack dogs come by our talking points:
Starting as pseudo-academic articles in Paddy MGuinness’s Quadrant and the IPA Review, ideas travel down the intellectual food chain via broadsheet opinion columns, to the Melbourne Herald-Sun’s Andrew Bolt and Sydney Daily Telegraph’s Piers Akerman and on to Sydney-basers Alan Jones, John Laws and others.
Like a brood of baby crocodiles flushed down a suburban toilet, these ideas have taken a subterranean journey through the sewers and emerged fully formed on main street, to devour the unwary. Listen to the punters from marginal electorates on talkback radio, read the reports of political focus groups, talk to your cab driver; they’re all repeating the opinions, boiled down to a populist essence, of some right-wing intellectual.
Whatever, stupid. By comparison, left-wing talking points travel the opposite path, beginning in the Daily Kos toilet:
[in case you haven’t been keeping up with  developments in Vietnam from 40 years ago…]
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote: Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3—United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.
“Wow,â€? responded a Kos kommenter. “The parallels are eerie. The voter turn-out, insurgents, ‘election’ of a US backed group, it all sounds so similar.â€? Wrote another: “Hopefully, we will see this being quoted other than in DailyKos.â€?
Wish granted! Here’s Paul McGeough in Saturday’s Sydney Morning Herald:
US apologists hate Vietnam comparisons, but here’s a sobering report from The New York Times of September 4, 1967 ...
And Mike Carlton in the same edition of the same newspaper:
You get some interesting stuff on the internet, such as this excerpt from a story published in The New York Times back in 1967 ...
And Scott Burchill in Monday’s Melbourne Age:
Before Bush’s supporters become too intoxicated by the historical significance of the January 30 ballot in Iraq, and assume that legitimacy has been conferred upon a new Iraqi polity, they might reflect on the following New York Times report from September 4, 1967 ...
And Burchill again at Margo Kingston’s Webdiary (where he’s described as “a lecturer in International Relations at Deakin Univeresity�):
... they might reflect on the following New York Times report from 4 September, 1967 ...
This is the best material these people have; that nearly 40 years ago an election in Vietnam was reported positively, but turned out badly. That proves the election in Iraq is doomed! Well done, Scott, Paul, and Mike.
Hitchens has already killed this notion in his usual, thorough way: http://www.slate.com/id/2112895/
Keith Olbermann brought it up too, apparently, but I’m not sure he reaches as big an audience as any of these others.
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2005 02 07 at 11:46 AM • permalinkUhh, that eletion was for Soucth Vietnam, not the whole country, and certainly not the North. The election in the South is completely irrelevant to the fact that the North was intent on capturing the entire peninsula. There’s no applicable parallel here, other than the “ooh shiney!” effect that the simpletons are drooling over.
Rush Limbaugh played a couple of Democratic talking points, the same word from everybody all at once, gravitas from 2000 and hubris from 2004, that’s amusing enough to save [url=http://rhhardin.home.mindspring.com/rushcut.hubris2.ram]http://rhhardin.home.mindspring.com/rushcut.hubris2.ram [/url]
I got banned by Margo again today. Burchill works at Deaken. That’s like trying to say “I’m a great chef because I work at McDonalds!”
Posted by Karl Fidel Adams-Kingston on 2005 02 07 at 12:28 PM • permalinkAs others have said, this analogy says more about how we failed South Vietnam than Iraq.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 02 07 at 04:12 PM • permalinkI’m a Vietnamese-American, and just started my own little blog at http://www.vietpundit.blogspot.com/ . I will write about this topic later. But here’s a relevant comment left by a Vietnamese from Paris, France: http://vietpundit.blogspot.com/2005/02/gratitude.html#c110760481671542174 .
Posted by VietPundit on 2005 02 07 at 04:30 PM • permalinkIn today’s Age:
Iraq-Vietnam analogy is flawed
Scott Burchill (Opinion, 7/2), like others who seem to believe that Iraqis cannot and should not elect their own representative government, compares the Iraqi turnout with that for the 1967 election in South Vietnam.The comparison is flawed, because the 1967 election was indeed a precursor to the eventual defeat of the Vietcong insurgency.
The 1968 Tet offensive was militarily disastrous for the Vietcong, and resulted in the fighting being taken over by the North Vietnamese Army, which in turn was heavily backed by the Soviet Union and China. South Vietnam finally fell not to the Vietcong, but to a conventional army comprising more soldiers and tanks than Hitler used to invade France in 1940.
The election in South Vietnam therefore provides no historical precedent for Iraq - unless Iran, Syria, Jordan or Saudi Arabia are massing their divisions for a conventional invasion.
I also went on to ask why, if many of the 20% of Iraqis who are Sunni didn’t vote, the elections are illegitimate, with a similarly contrived argument that if many of the 20% of South Africans who are white didn’t vote in 1994, would Nelson Mandela’s accession be similarly illegitimate?
But I guess The Age couldn’t handle that particular money shot.
All that needs to happen is for the Coalition to withdraw all troops, then Ted Kennedy can get all aid to Iraq blocked and Iran or Syria can overrun Iraq. Then it’ll be “just like Vietnam” and the moonbats will be happy.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 02 07 at 05:43 PM • permalinkThe most relevant historical analogy twixt the Iraq/Vietnam Wars is that the ‘useful idiots’ (as Ho Chi Minhn called the MSM and ‘peace’ protestors) were the only enemy we could not defeat.
The War was NEVER lost on the battlefield it was lost in the loungerooms via the MSM and on the streets via the ‘peacniks’ ironically supporting a brutal Communist Regime that would have seen them all shot ( a la Hue ‘68).The Kronkites, Jane Fondas, John Kerrys and the whole ‘peace loving’ moratorium movement have a lot to answer for.
2.5 million murdered after the ‘liberation’ by the sweet, peace loving Communists post-75 cry from their graves. Ah such peace.
A further comparison could perhaps be made with the Tet Offensive ‘68 and the Iraq election 2005. Both were in reality a resounding success for the democratic forces but both are claimed as failures by the ‘useful idiots’.
Herein lies the lesson.
Never again can the useless idiots be allowed to so warp the truth as to whiteant our resolve and see democracy suffer.This is the lesson we must never forget lest history repeat itself.
Expose the useful idiots for the insidious enemy they are.I don’t take Hitchens too seriously, but I got a cheap laugh out of this one remark:
If today’s Iraqi “insurgents” have any analogue at all in Southeast Asia it would be the Khmer Rouge. (here)
The Khmer Rouge? Would that be the same Khmer Rouge a recent presidential candidate claims to have smuggled arms to? (Or was it hats, or geese, or seared hearts, or purple hearts, or some other thing?)
Heh heh heh.
Hey, Newsweek isn’t even bothering to try to hide it: the current issue’s front page is a picture of two ski-masked rifle-toters. (Can’t even smile for the camera? Tossers.) The headline is “The Insurgents: Who They Are, and Why the Elections Won’t Stop Them”.
Media bias? NAAAAAAAH. In fact, if elections can’t stop them, then it looks like we need more non-diplomatic options available to us, like armies.
Nightfly,
Counterinsurgency Warfare dictates that without the support of the populace the insurgency will fail. The Election proved that 8 million+ said no to to the terror tactics and this is the message the insurgents must take seriously.
Their time is coming to an end. May it come swiftly and savagely via large calibre munitions and may the 72 pullets be kind and cluckly when these manly women beaters reach the Pimp God’s Paradise.Remember the trouble we had getting up San Juan Hill? And that was just against the Spanish, by cracky! We’ll never be able to win a beachhead against the Huns! May as well make the best of it and try to engage Mr. Hitler…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 02 07 at 08:31 PM • permalinkThat’s precisely the trouble with these so-called ‘progressives’, they’re all hopelessly caught up in a time warp, they’re all Vietnam era dinosaurs. That’s who’s running the ABC!
They think the most definitive event of the twentieth century was the Vietnam war. I grew up in Cabramatta and I remember one of my Vietnamese friends telling me that Vietnam has had five wars in modern history and the only one the Left is interested in is the war with America. She said whenever the Vietnam war is brought up on the ABC, it has nothing to do with Vietnam, it’s all about them and their indulgent agenda.
Christ, if anyone looks as though they’ve crawled up out of the sewer it’s that grub Burchill!This is the best material these people have; that nearly 40 years ago an election in Vietnam was reported positively, but turned out badly. That proves the election in Iraq is doomed!
-and, just like in the 60’s, the press is doing it’s damnedest to make us believe it’s a failure- and, just like in the 60’s, they fail to mention that.
Posted by Glenn Bowen on 2005 02 07 at 09:21 PM • permalinkNow, thanks to the Left, there are no free elections in South Vietnam. The Leftists have reminded us of their shameful history.
Posted by Susan Norton on 2005 02 07 at 09:33 PM • permalinkYou are missing the rest of the parallel. Northern Iraq is home of the Kurds. Kurds starts with the same sound as Communists. Obviously the Kurds are going to make an army with their friends in Turkey and invade the rest of Iraq.
Posted by drscroogemcduck on 2005 02 07 at 11:08 PM • permalinkThese baby boomers, so self-indulgently retro!
Through the haze from the bong, I cast my mind back to 1967…Hanoi Margo was broadcasting from Fallujah, calling on our boys to throw down their arms; Lyndon Johnson had just promised another 100,000 troops to the puppet regime in Baghdad; in protest, Shiite imams were immolating themseves in public places; Ngo Dinh Allawi just about to be butchered by terrorists; Bobby Kennedy promising to bring the boys home; and Richard Nison waiting in the wings to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age.
It seems like only yesterday…
David Cowan in Washington Times has a shot at the intellectual ivory towers and in particular Ward Churchill;
[I]The absurdity of academics jumping to the defense of the professor is that it now seems intellectually acceptable to call American people Nazis, but please do not call them Christians. The theological point is closer to the truth, that we all bear the fault of sin.
…………………
George Orwell put it best when he explained that there are some ideas so idiotic that only intellectuals would believe them.[/I]
Dennis Glover and Mel Gibson were great in those ‘Lethal Weapon’ films. It’s a pity Glover is a pansy liberal.
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 02 08 at 03:16 AM • permalinkAnd here’s what the Trotskyists say:
The parallels are striking. While Bush basks in the reflected glory of the turnout at the Iraqi polls, virtually no one in the media bothers to recall the unpleasant fact that Washington agreed to the election only under duress. It was organized in order to defuse a full-scale uprising by the Shiite population, whose principal religious figure, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, had demanded a popular vote. Initially, the US administration planned on installing its stooge Ahmed Chalabi and similar CIA operatives in power. Later, occupation authority chief Paul Bremer hatched a plan for a handpicked US council to form a government.
Having been forced to hold such an election—both in Vietnam and Iraq—the US administration turned it into a propaganda vehicle designed to suppress the mounting popular opposition at home to American military intervention.
They draw more recent historical parallels, too:
The New York Times published an editorial in anticipation of the vote on January 14, 2003, entitled “A Sham Referendum.�
“The idea that a fair test of Chechen opinion can be carried out in the present climate of intimidation is ludicrous,â€? the newspaper declared. “Any government emerging from this flawed process is likely to be seen by Chechens as a band of Russian collaborators, not their own independently chosen representatives…. [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s aim seems not to offer a real political opening, but a stage-managed show aimed at convincing the outside world that the Chechen war is over and no longer warrants international concern.â€?
How true such words ring, with the appropriate name changes, to describe the grotesque farce in Iraq!
Don’t these guys get tired forseeing doom at every turn?
I get exhausted reading their lame analogies and the certainty of their prognostications of failure.
I accept the likes of Carlton and company have no interest in being dispassionate, they make good money out of being recalcitrant.
But surely somewhere in the average lefties mind there is at least one thought of optimism or hope regarding Iraq’s future.They say that generals are always fighting the last war. To that we can now add:
Leftists are always fighting the Vietnam war.
Like sad, ancient guys telling everyone they meet that every situation is like their imagined triumph from the old days. Whether they’re old footballers, or old socialists, they’re all the same.
For people who like to identify themselves as progressives, an awful lot are stuck in the 1960’s. Doesn’t seem very progressive to me.
I’m getting so sick and tired of getting dragged back to the 1960’s. It’s like we’ve become stuck in a bad version of ‘Groundhog Day’.
I would change this:
“..they’re all repeating the opinions, boiled down to a populist essence, of some right-wing intellectual.”
to this:
..they’re all repeating the opinions, boiled down to a populist essence, of some left-wing pseudo-intellectuals who are stuck in a 1960’s time warp.Posted by CJosephson on 2005 02 08 at 04:35 AM • permalinkThe FDR vs. Dewey election campaign was spirited but conducted within understood parameters: no questioning of the war effort; no argument about whether the Germans had had anything to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor and if the war in Europe was a “distraction” from the war against Japan; candidates and voters understood that the USA and its allies were (admittedly flawed) good guys and the Nazis, et al, were pure evil. There was no trashing of the electoral system; no pre-emptive questioning of the legitimacy of the winner; and above all, Dewey and his supporters did not provide talking points for the enemy.
How things have changed! See the whole piece about how the left polluted the mainstream, before the archive disappears at Diplomad’s October 2004 ArchiveThe Left is simply - following massive defeats in the USA and Australia, followed by a democratic election in Iraq - bewailing the loss of its perceived constituency - the people.
So it turns on them. That’s all.
Apart from that, it’s a storm in a teacup. Goodnight Left. You are losers on a grand scale. Irrelevant losers at that.
The real question (because scorn is also irrelevant) is: which media outlets will continue to trash their credibility by running failed Leftist agendae and arguments (beyond that which constitutes robust debate, of course)?
“The Left use the Vietnam war comparison for EVERY war!”
Don’t knock it - you can make some good money out of it. A friend of mine recycled the same lame analogy in 1990 for the first Gulf War. And I bet him $100 (we were schoolboys, so that was a lot of money) that the war would be over within three months. He thought two years would be more likely, and the draft would be introduced.
I made a similar bet with another friend about the US elections last year, and won that, though I haven’t had a chance to collect it yet. When your friends are thinking wishfully, that’s the time to make the big bets.
At a recent small gathering with old aquaintances, near the end of the evening people drifted “outside” increasingly to smoke dope and slag Dubya and Howard.I couldn’t wait to leave as it became increasingly obvious that these “50 somethings ” still got a kick out of defying authority and still saw themselves as radical standard bearers for the Left.A part of them had just never grown up and they were safely ensconced in their own little universe, comfortably convinced of their group moral superiority. It was spooky to watch a time warp and I had to ” stand not upon the order of my going”. Or something..
The debate re: War vs No War is outdated and pointless. The right can point the end of Totalitarianism in Iraq, and the left can point to the massess of corpses that it has cost, and at the end of the day there is no clear winner. Its easy to argue that the dead aren’t worth it, and its also easy to argue that the future generations of people living in a free democratic Iraq are worth the cost.
I agree with the general gist of this thread though- even though I am firmly pointed in the direction of the left. Comparing this conflict to the one in Vietnam is about as pointless as comparing different elections.
But the way I see it, our side of the spectrum stands more to gain from the end of this conflict than does yours. People love Tories during wars. Its when the wars over and the people get to focus on the trail of destruction that the various war mongering ghengis khan lovers like Bush and Howard have left behind that we can profit. You think that Thug W would have won a second term if there wasn’t a War in Iraq?
Of course there is the problem with W being enough of a ideological crack pot, and Howard being enough of a sycophant for them to go and muscle into Syria or Iran and guarantee us another lord knows how many years of quagmire like conflict, but I’m confident that at the end of it all that the right will have rendered itself totally unelectable for quite some time. Gulf War I was a total sucess and what did it do for Bush I?
So I am all for ending the insurgents and starting a prosperous democracy. The sooner the better…
And I’m aware of the spelling errors in case your wondering. Pull me up on something else.
Oh and one more thing. You guys are sadly un-evangelical for a right wing blog. Work on that one for me. There is nothing worse than a right winger who doesn’t claim some sort of spiritual mission. And lets face it, its an effective balance to the blatant stench of evil that the lot of you give off.
Is troll an acronymn for something or is the best you can come up with on short notice?
And Rebeccas brief rant is like saying ‘How was WW2 successful if it left Stalin in Power? Rather than get into the long winded pro war vs anti war debate re: Gulf War I I’ll quote a champion of the Left wing Media
“We’ve spent $200 billion destroying Iraq. Now we’ve got to spend $200 billion to rebuild it, if they’ll let us. And all to find a nut in a foxhole - one guy” - Ted Tuner knows what hes on about.
And he sums it up wonderfully. The pro war people put the line between costs and benefits at a different point to the anti war people. The point is that the sooner this is over the better.
If anything, it should be you lot hoping this thing drags on for years. Who’ll remember the Iraq after its over and the dead GIs stop flying home?
I agree, PW. Goodbye, nd1993. (I wonder what that refers to—probably some communist “victory” or other. Well, we’ll never know—I’m suspending his account. He can be re-admitted if he emails me or Tim an apology for his rudeness. Maybe.)
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 02 08 at 12:04 PM • permalinkI dunno, Andrea, not being on any “spiritual mission”, I was going to hit the showers extra long tonight, to get rid of that ”...blatant stench of evil…”. Maybe with an extra slap of aftershave, just to be sure.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 02 08 at 12:43 PM • permalinkGet rid of it! Why, I prefer to spray on some extra Blatant Stench of Evil before I go out of the house! That, or I simply dab some Oil of Burning Sulphur on my wrists. Depends on my mood.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 02 08 at 12:49 PM • permalinkAnd I get this in my email alerts;
The following person has submitted a new member registration: nd1992.9999
The IP address—203.219.186.2—just happens to be the same as nd1993’s. Hey asshole, just how fucking stupid do you think I am? Congratulations, your IP address is banned as well.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 02 08 at 01:03 PM • permalink“Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I’m being repressed!”
Now Andrea, I think that was polite and reasoned discourse for a Kossack. Of course, for truely infantile petulant rudeness, you’d need a DUmbie or a Indymedia Morlock.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 02 08 at 01:31 PM • permalinkThat Dennis Glover certainly has a way with a metaphor. NOT!
By the way, he apparently (if it is the same Dennis Glover) was a speechwriter for Kimbo, Simon Crean et al
“Like a brood of baby crocodiles flushed from a suburban toilet”.
Not so flash with such clever use of the language, but I think we suburbanites are getting the boot kicked in again.
Hope the baby crocodile bites him on the backside.
Someone let Adrian the Cabbie know that taxi-drivers are also wearing it.
Posted by Major Anya on 2005 02 08 at 02:52 PM • permalinkI must admit, the follow-up post quoting well-known nutcase Ted Turner as though he’s some kind of authority borders on self-parody.
Anyway, I’d rather carry the stench of evil than the aroma of stupid, but that’s just me.
Who’ll remember the Iraq after its over and the dead GIs stop flying home?
Not any leftists, I can predict that much.
Sure. That’s what you all say. And then I’m left to scrape up the bits of flesh and bone and wash the blood off the walls.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 02 08 at 03:58 PM • permalinkActually, it wasn’t a “shot on the religious right” as much as it was a cry of: “you people aren’t acting like my prejudices say you must so start acting like Jesus freaks dammit!”
...and of course, it’s those icky others who have the problem, not nd1993. ;)
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 02 08 at 03:58 PM • permalink“the left can point to the masses of corpses… “
Now is that the masses of corpses caused by:
Islamics through their years of conquest, the Saudis during the fights over who would rule there, Stalin during his rule, Germany under Hitler, Japan in militarist mode,Saddam during the second half of the 20th century, along with various African psychopaths readily assisted by the soviets and their Cuban stooges?
Or are we just talking about the current ones? The corpse we are all contemplating is that of enlightened liberalism, which once had the guts to fight and die if necessary (and it often is) to resist totalitarianism in all its forms! You cannot be picky about methodology when your situation is dire. We do seem to have a bit of a disagreement about the direness of what we face. What we don’t have anymore is elightened liberalism.Drat! I didn’t get a whack at that nd-shaped piñata!
Rude? Check.
Malinformed? Check.For my money the absolute worst thing said wasn’t the gratuitous shots at Howard or GWB (or GHB). It was this bit: “This mess is a heck of a lot better for my side than yours!” That is utterly the least consideration in war - grow up.
Being a ‘good Leftie’ these days must be very depressing. All doom, gloom, anger and rage.
Posted by CJosephson on 2005 02 08 at 07:04 PM • permalinkWell he’s banned, but I stil have to respond.
“You think that Thug W would have won a second term if there wasn’t a War in Iraq?” Yes of course. Face it, Kerry was a dud candidate.
Moreover, why didn’t you ask “You think that HoWARd would have won another term if there wasn’t a War in Iraq?” I’ll tell you why, because you know very well that the war in Iraq was a non-issue in the Australian election. No one gave a damn then so why all of a sudden, would the majority decide to vote Labor if the war finishes?
You’re confident the right will be unelectable for years. I’m sure you were also confident that Latham would destroy Howard, and Kerry would do similar to Bush. You’re exactly the same as my left-wing friends who talk only to each other and then tell me that everyone is aginst Howard, thus they will win the next election.
If Howard and Costello continue to deliver what the people want (strong economy, low unemployment etc) and the left continues to tell the people what the left thinks they want to hear (withdrawal from Iraq, Medicare Gold) then I will remain supremely confident that the left will remain unelectable, war or not.
Sorry about the stench of evil, must have got stuck in my clothes when I clubbed that baby seal this morning.
And ignorant as well.
And Rebeccas brief rant is like saying ‘How was WW2 successful if it left Stalin in Power?
Were we at war with Stalin in WWII, or did I miss something?
I kind of wish ndwhatever hadn’t been banned so quickly as well, but that’s because my inner cat-who-loves-torturing-mice hasn’t been sufficiently quelled. Thank you, Andrea, for protecting my better side.
Yeah, Tim—apply to Arty for your paycheck!
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 02 09 at 01:10 AM • permalink” You guys are sadly un-evangelical for a right wing blog. “
Yeah, well Jayzus told me to keep it on the down-low…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 02 09 at 01:21 AM • permalinki dont force my christian beliefs on others here because i know that YOU’LL ALL BURN IN HELL if you dont believe. ok?
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 02 09 at 01:47 AM • permalinkCompletely OT, but this is amusing. David Hicks has sacked his slimball, Howard-hating, chardonnay set, media whore lawyer because Hicks thinks his ‘confrontational approach may not be working’ yet the guy says he’ll still represent him:
Sacked lawyer vows to fight for Hicks’s freedom
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 02 09 at 02:13 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Wow, Daily Kos, font of Australian journalism. Whoda thunk it?