No wonder he’s irrelevant
By Tom Chambers • 1:33 p.m. July 19, 2007 • 1 Comment • 0 Trackbacks
Tags: democrats, john kerry, war
As an example of anti-war revisionist history, John Kerry said this morning on “Washington Journal” that there was no bloodbath after the U.S. cut-and-ran from Vietnam. Is he kidding?
The North Vietnamese rounded up South Vietnamese and killed them, sent them to camps and more in true communist style. In all, 165,000 South Vietnamese died after the fall of Saigon.
Where was Kerry?
UPDATE Barack Obama joined the fray today, too. Mr. Rideout made an appropriate point in his comment — who cares about the foreigners?
Obama said that preventing genocide is not a good reason to stay in Iraq, especially without an international mandate. Even though he believes that if we leave, there will be more bloodshed. Here’s some excerpts of what the junior senator from Illinois told the Associated Press:
Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done.
We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea …
… There’s no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there …
… We cannot achieve a stable Iraq with a military. We could be fighting there for the next decade.
Good thing this guy running for president knows history. Yes, we could, and likely will, have a presence for at least the next decade. We still have troops in the former Yugoslavia, Germany and Japan. In fact, “insurgents” kept popping up in Germany for — you guessed it — a decade after the end of World War II.
But hey, it was a bad idea to go in there and prevent genocide. Clearly, stopping Slobodan Milosevic, Adolf Hitler and Imperial Japan didn’t work out. We didn’t have a U.N. mandate, after all.
Funny thing is, he’s arguing against a foreign policy carried out through history by Democrats — until Bush picked it up.

you forget, foreigners arn’t people