« Britney Spears Declares Herself to Be the Anti-Christ | Main | Global Warming Hits Bulgarian Brothels »

March 6, 2007

The Left's Bloodthirsty Commitment to Peace

FrontPage offers a great quote by Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT):

The greatest gift our country can give the Cambodian people is not guns but peace. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now.

Dodd said that on March 12, 1975, as the Dems were pulling the financial rug out from under South Vietnam and Cambodia. They didn't want victory, they just wanted to give peace a chance.

A little more than a month after Dodd's fatuous remark, Pol Pot took power in Phnom Penn. His communist regime managed to kill about 30% of the entire population of the country. The catastrophe that befell South Vietnam, epitomized by the Boat People, wasn't much prettier.

Astoundingly, being drenched in the blood of 2 million Cambodians does not stop Dodd from running for President. Nor does the cataclysm that followed American withdrawal from Southeast Asia prevent the Democrat Party from pursuing the same policy for Iraq, though no one seriously disputes the consequences will be comparable if not worse — and far more likely to follow us home.

When liberals advocate "peace," they're not after a decrease in political violence, but a decrease in American hegemony. "Peace" means waging propaganda war against the Pax Americana that has suppressed violence around the world.

Increased American presence has resulted in a 70% decrease in Baghdad violence over the last few weeks. But this is hardly likely to win Dems over to support the troop surge. On the contrary, the more likely it is to lead to American success at quelling violence, the more vehemently Democrats will object to it, politically committed as they are to our defeat.

The Democrat Party's gift of peace to the people of Cambodia.

Posted by Van Helsing at March 6, 2007 8:28 AM


"A little more than a month after Dodd's fatuous remark, Pol Pot took power in Phnom Penn. His communist regime managed to kill about 30% of the entire population of the country."

I love how the lefties define "peace".

North Korea is at peace too, how many millions have died in their forced labor camps worked to death for defying their government? The Soviet Union was at "peace" while Stalin killed 20 million of his people. Iraq was at "peace too between 1992 and 2003 while Saddam was busy filling mass graves with his opponents.

Posted by: General Jack D. Ripper at March 6, 2007 9:24 AM

Leftists in general prefer genocide to war. It's okay if people are marched peaceably off to the camps to die, like in Cambodia. Or simply slaughtered in their homes, like Rwanda or Darfur. But when people resist genocide, like the Israelis, liberals take umbrage, because war is icky. How unpeaceful it is to resist!

Posted by: V the K at March 6, 2007 9:30 AM

Who got the U.S. involved in that war?

...JFK and LBJ... Democrats.

They wasted countless lives on a cause that they wouldnt commit to.

The majority of Democrats voted to authorize force in Iraq. They did so solely because it was popular.

When the campaigning season for the 2004 presidential elections came around they realized that supporting the president would help him get re-elected. Ever since then they turned on our troops and the Iraqi people.

The Iraqis are only cannonfodder for the Democrat's ambitions for the 2008 presidential elections.

Posted by: Freedom Now at March 6, 2007 9:31 AM

This should be a good one. Thanks VH

Posted by: Freedom Now at March 6, 2007 9:31 AM

Of course, Bill Clinton did respond to genocide in Kosovo... by showing up six months late and then bombing the next country over from where it was happening.

Posted by: V the K at March 6, 2007 10:00 AM

In case you ever want a different opinion - the illegal bombings by Nixon were the straw that broke the Cambodian governments back, allowing Pol Pot to take over.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 6, 2007 11:14 AM

Yes!!!! Anon comes up with a priceless nugget of wisdom.

Why did the U.S. bomb North Cambodia comrade? Were we bombing the Cambodian government or the NORTH VIETNAMESE troops that illegally occupied that part of the country?

These are the same troops who trained and armed Pol Pot.

Thank you very much!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Freedom Now at March 6, 2007 12:56 PM

The Khmer Rouge was able to take over Cambodia because of our bombing the Viet Cong who where using Cambodia? The bombings broke the back of the government of Lon Nol?

Now, that is a different opinion Anonymous.

Posted by: kevin at March 6, 2007 1:11 PM

He or she sounds like Chump-sky, a former apologist for the Khymer Rouge.

Posted by: Freedom Now at March 6, 2007 1:45 PM

"illegal bombings by Nixon were the straw that broke the Cambodian governments back"

Interesting how he only gives the story in bits. Not mentioning who was bombed or why, implying Nixon somehow wanted Cambodia to collapse, implying the Cambodian govt itself was targeted, leaving out all relevant information as to what exactly was going on.

It's all in wikipedia and a plethora of other sources. Anyone who really wants to know can look it up. Don't just take tiny nuggets from one poster.

The point is that because of the Democratic party's decision to stop funding and stop military aid, South Vietnam collapsed and 3 million people died; and that the Democrats, because of their basic philosophy in these issues, is attempting the same thing in Iraq.

Wouldn't you agree, Anonymous?

Posted by: NudeGayWhalesForJesus at March 6, 2007 2:58 PM



Forgot to type in the old name.

The US went to war in Vietnam in a bipartisan effort despite the attempt above to portray it as ADemocratic war (show me any serious Republican opposition). It was a continuation of the valid American effort to contain Communism, and a continuation of American support. Attempts to portray the Cold War in a partisan manner fail because it was a bipartisan effort.

The bombings have indeed been cited by historians as the reason the Khmer Rouge was able to topple the fragile government.

We live in a two party state. If you want to live in a one party state well, that is the same as the Communists. Adios.

Posted by: mahons at March 6, 2007 3:13 PM


Posted by: NudeGayWhalesForJesus at March 6, 2007 3:39 PM

>>>Who got the U.S. involved in that war?

It was the French. Sorry Freedom Now.

In order to get French permission to invade France, durring World War Two, we had to promass the French to back their colonial claims in their empire and that included "Indochina" which included a place called "Viet Nam". There were some OSS agents who worked with Ho Chi Mihn and said that they were steering him AWAY from communism and that handing the country over to France would bring on a revolution.

Anyone want to guess what happened?

Posted by: KHarn at March 6, 2007 3:53 PM

The other thing that anon conveniently leaves out is that the Left was rooting for Pol Pot and Ho Chih Minh. The genocide in Indochina was carried out by their heroes.

Posted by: V the K at March 6, 2007 4:09 PM


What are you talking about? No one ever said that the Republicans didn’t support the U.S. effort in SE Asia.

Quit making stuff up.

However, there is this political office called the Presidency. The person in this job is a member of a political party. This person also makes foreign policy with the consent of Congress. He is the most influential person in such decision making and is credited with the success and failure of his policy.

You are all grown up now and can keep things in context if you concentrate just a little bit.

Do you believe that the North Vietnamese invasion was legal?

Pol Pot seized Cambodia because of his support from North Vietnam. He came to the NVA to ask for their help when he was a wanted man. It was the NVA that helped Pol Pot set up his first guerilla camp on the border. Without that support how would he have trained and equipped his troops?

For many years the primary fighting against the Cambodian government was done by the NVA until Khymer Rouge could gain strength.

While the U.S. is blamed for escalating the war in Cambodia, it was actually the Khymer Rouge in 1968 that began an offensive A YEAR BEFORE the U.S. bombing campaign. This was the catalyst for the escalation, not the U.S. boogieman.

Ultimately the Cambodian government’s demand for full sovereignty over the whole country and the expulsion of occupying NVA forces led to their fall. Their blocking of Cambodian ports used to ship weapons to the NVA in South Vietnam led to a further escalation of the crisis… A crisis that the Cambodian government was not strong enough to win. The defection of their leader Prince Sihanouk ensured that the government would be too fractured to put up an effective resistance.

Revisionist history is nothing but the restructuring of facts to blame the U.S. for everything.

KHam, JFK and LBJ had freewill. Whether or not they agreed to support French colonialism was their choice...

Posted by: Freedom Now at March 6, 2007 5:26 PM

>>>KHam, JFK and LBJ had freewill. Whether or not they agreed to support French colonialism was their choice...

I was talking about events WAY before their presidency. At the time of the Casablanca Conferance, JFK was running around in a motor torpedo boat and I think Johnson was a lawyer. France was run out of South East Asia in the Fifties.

Posted by: KHarn at March 6, 2007 7:27 PM

Sure, France and England's post WWII colonialism was outrageously stupid.

They should have followed our lead when we gave the Philippines independence.

Posted by: Freedom Now at March 6, 2007 8:21 PM

mahons translated into English:

Everything the U.S. does (under Republican control) = illegal

Everything evil communist dicators do = justified

Everything the U.S. does in retaliation to evil communists dictators = illegal

Everything evil communists dictators do in response to the U.S. = justified

hehe, hey whatever helps you sleep at night.

Posted by: NudeGayWhalesForJesus at March 6, 2007 9:43 PM


You are so consumed by your rightwing circle jerk that you have failed reading comprehension.

I never wrote any such thing regarding what Republicans do (my criticism was reserved for the bombings in Cambodia)

I never wrote any such thing regarding Communist leaders (in fact I described the war as a valid American effort to contain communism).

I fully support and am proud of the US aims during the Cold War to combat communism. What I don't think is accurate is the attempt to portray all the successes as belonging to one party and all the failures as belonging to another. I sleep fine. Try the facts, it might help you sleep.

Posted by: mahons at March 7, 2007 7:47 AM

Freedom Now: I don't blame you for not reading your own comments, it must be embarrassing. You attempted to portray the Vietnam war as having been Democrat instigated when we all know it was a bipartisan effort.
I don't blame the US for everything, and in fact credit it for its aims during the Cold War. But you are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. The truth is that the US efforts in Vietnam had bipartisan support.

Posted by: mahons at March 7, 2007 7:53 AM

Let's step back a moment from the argument over who got us into Vietnam, who got us out, and what was done in between.

I think that one key to understanding the Liberal/Radical Left is that whatever else happens they MUST NOT accept any part of the responsibility for the way Communist regimes they adored oversaw the murders of as many as a hundred million people in the twentieth century.

The vast majority of these people are emotional, ethical, and moral lightweights. They are well intentioned twits many of whom live in highly protected precincts, such as Academia. If they accepted any real portion of their culpability in enabling the likes of Stalin, it would almost certainly destroy them. So, they must at all costs hold on to a worldview in which they are blameless. This involves believing any number of things that are demonstrably untrue.

Hence the depth of their delusion, and their ferocity in defending it.

Posted by: C. S. P. Schofield at March 7, 2007 9:02 AM

C.S.P. - I'll take you one step further. The radical left is not necessarily well intentioned. Of course, neither is the radical right.

Posted by: mahons at March 7, 2007 10:59 AM

Good morning Mahons.

You say I dont read my own comments because you have no have no reading comprehension of your own.

Of course the Republicans supported the foreign policy of their Democratic Party presidents. I NEVER SAID THAT THEY DIDN’T. I actually have stated this before, but you don’t seem to understand English very well.

On the other hand, to underestimate the leadership that JFK and LBJ played in getting the U.S. involved in the Vietnam War is woefully ignorant. The LEADERSHIP of U.S. policy in SE Asia was by provided by TWO PRESIDENTS FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. The power of the presidency to determine such policies can be seen today. Even with control of Congress, the Democrats cannot change our policy in Iraq.

However, during the entire presidencies of JFK and LBJ - the Republicans were the minority party in the House of Representatives and the Senate. SO WE HAD A PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS RUN BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DURING THE ENTIRE SIXTIES. They determined the direction of our country.

In May of 1960 JFK composed “The Presidential Program for Vietnam”. It stated, “U.S. objectives and concept of operations [are] to prevent communist domination of South Vietnam; to create in that country a viable and increasingly democratic society, and to initiate, on an accelerated basis, a series of mutually supporting actions of a military, political, economic psychological, and covert character designed to achieve this objective.” This laid out our foreign policy in SE Asia for the next decade.

It was JFK who first sent US Special Forces to Vietnam and it was LBJ who requested the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that gave him AUTHORIZATION TO WAGE WAR. He wanted the power so badly that he exaggerated a skirmish which occurred between U.S. and N. Vietnamese naval forces.

The point is that it was the leadership of the Democratic Party that took us to war and it was the leadership of the Democratic Party which later blocked the support that we promised to give South Vietnam after our withdrawal. I don’t think the Democrats were wrong for helping the South Vietnamese in the first place, but their later abandonment of our ally was disgraceful.

Anyone that remembers those events cannot forget the hopeless plight of S. Vietnamese boat people trying to escape the Communists. Over a million civilians fled in any means of water borne transportation they could get and were mercilessly preyed upon by pirates. Millions more people were murdered, tortured and thrown into concentration camps in Vietnam and Cambodia. I'm sure Ted Kennedy was proud.

Posted by: Freedom Now at March 7, 2007 12:08 PM

Freedomnow: In a battle of wits you are unarmed.

There was overwhelming across the aisle support for both JFK and LBJ's Vietnam policy (it faded for LBJ as the war dragged on). It was an American commitment, keeping faith with the prior Republican Administration. As the war dragged on and its futility became obvious, support for the war ended. Only in the world of rightwing blogging would someone lay blame for Pol Pot purely on the Democratic Party (suprise - on left wing sites blame is laid at the feet of the Republicans by the extreme left).

I am not aware of Republican support for the so-called Boat People as being any more significant than Democratic support.

As for Ted Kennedy, I don't care for him, but by citing him exclusively you've indicated you can do little more than parrot rightwing paranoia.

Posted by: mahons at March 7, 2007 1:42 PM


I'll skip the vain posturing that you enjoy.

Although you have accused me of making up facts, I have supplied mountains of facts and you have not disproved them.

I agree that it was an American policy to intervene in SE Asia and the Republicans SUPPORTED this decision. (Additionally, they were much more loyal in wartime to their bitter political opponents than the Democrats of today. In war they truly were the loyal opposition.)

Now answer me directly…

Can you prove that the Democratic Party did not lead us into the Vietnam War?

Can you prove that the same political party did not deny aid that had been promised to our allies after our withdrawal?

There is no room for wiggling around my friend. These are direct questions.

I only mentioned Ted Kennedy because he had a prominent role in denying aid to our SE Asian allies. If I am paranoid please prove me wrong on this point. I await your reply.


Posted by: Freedom Now at March 7, 2007 2:52 PM

Freedomnow: The Republicans were not opposed to JFK or LBJ's intervention in Vietnam, in fact they agreed with it and in some cases, were the biggest cheerleaders. It was a continuation of the general policy of Truman and Eisenhower and frankly was well intentioned but poorly executed (which is why it reminds people of Iraq). Vietnam wasn't a Democratic war per se, same as Iraq is not a Republican one. It was a bipartisan effort by the United States, if you doubt that read the roll call on the vote for the Gulf of Tonkin Treaty.
If you can learn to accept that neither party has sole claim to virtue, you'll begin to understand what is really great about America.

Posted by: mahons at March 7, 2007 3:59 PM

typo - treaty should read resolution.

Posted by: mahons at March 7, 2007 4:00 PM


I made two statements.

1) The Democrats led us to war in SE Asia

2) The Democrats cut off funds for our SE Asian allies after our withdrawal even though we had promised them aid.

A president of corporation doesn’t have to own it, in order to run it. We are talking about leadership here, not possession. Although you have made a number of attacks on my use of logic, you have still not disproved the validity of my statements.

Anyways, the relationship between point #1 and #2 is what is important. It’s really pathetic.

(As a side note, I am not even a Conservative. I don’t share many values with Republicans other than I support the war on fascism and I am opposed to the insanity of the radical Left, Paleo-Conservatives and Neo-Nazis. The attacks by these extremists on Neo-Conservatives are for the most part wildly unfounded so I defend them quite often.)

Posted by: Freedom Now at March 7, 2007 5:49 PM

Freedomnow: I would agree that the failure to even supply our former allies in South Vietnam with financial aid was tragic and that it was A Democratic Congress that failed in that regard (overriding a veto if I recall). William F. Buckely had a great line at the time about how the South Vietnamese army, for all of its problems, still held out longer against greater odds than the French did in WW2. A tragedy.

I think your point on entry to the war is misguided as there was an almost universal agreement of both parties to support South Vietnam, and Eisenhower had sent in the first advisers. If your point is that Democratic presidents were at the helm when the war escalated, that is obvious.

While we are on labels, I don't consider myself a liberal. But I do find it over the top to blame the Democrats for Pol Pot.

Posted by: mahons at March 8, 2007 10:31 AM

No one said that they hold exclusive blame. There were many other factors involved, however the Democrats conduct in that affair was questionable.

Anyways, our country sends military advisors all over the world. We don’t send 10s or 100s of thousands of troops into battle very often. That was orchestrated by two presidents from the Democratic Party and the U.S. government which was controlled by the same party.

Although I disagree with the handling of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, I do not blame these Democratic Party presidents for getting us involved in SE Asia. That is not my point. The South Vietnamese government needed our help. Therefore, I believe it was worthwhile to defend the people of this country from an illegal invasion. I do not blame them for undertaking a worthy project.

I ONLY PRESENT THIS FACT TO ILLUSTRATE THE FORCE OF RESPONSIBILITY THAT THEY COMMITTED TO THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH VIETNAM. As members of the U.S. government, the Republicans also labored under this responsibility. On the other hand, the same applies to current events in Iraq.

My point hinges on the utter lack of political will that the Democratic Party has shown in that conflict and the parallels it has to the current Iraq War. Most importantly, the disgraceful manner that they are willing to abandon their allies. The Democrats are doing it again and that is worth discussing. I fear for the people of Iraq.

Posted by: Freedom Now at March 8, 2007 1:54 PM

In reading the above exchanges between "Freedom now" and "Mahons" I find it interesting that Freedom "finally" agrees that Democratic Presidents led us in to Vietnam, and democrats then failed to support those Vietnameese when we left. Let us be clear that the Khmer Rouge was responsible for democide of 1/3rd of the population of Cambodia; not democratic or republican policy. The question then is what policy would have best prevented (yet another murderous comminist goverment)from this slaughter. An American policy of milatary fighting / bombing and then complete withdraw was in Southeast Asia the worst policy possible. It is valid to ask if they (democrats) are again making the same mistake? The question of how many innocent civiliians were killed by American attempts to stop the Cambodian supply line into Vietnam, and how much this helped gain sympathy for the Khmer Rouge is a valid question.

Posted by: Shashumna at March 13, 2007 2:24 PM