The Sky Is Falling, The Sky Is Falling

Cross posted from Right In A Left World

August 25, 2007

As small children, all of us heard or read the fable of Chicken Little who believed the sky was falling after an acorn fell and hit her on the head and subsequently scared other animals into believing the sky was falling and putting all in the forest in danger.

As the fable brings out, the sky cannot fall and the story of “The Sky Is Falling” has become synonymous with alarmists spreading false alarms. Some now refer to it as “fear mongering.”

Pacifists, anti-war leftists, Democrat Party leaders, RINO’s and other moonbats, including members of the lamestream media, use this fable today to point out that western civilization is in no danger from radical Jihadists and those of us who see the looming menace of radical Islamists are little more than Chicken Little ourselves, spreading word of false dangers.

With expectations of the congressionally mandated Petraeus Report on Iraq and the effectiveness of the Presidents Troop Reinforcement, pre-emptive measures are being taken to counter any anticipated good news reported. As I previously posted, even though some prominent Democrats are admitting the reinforcement is showing progress, party leadership has Continued to Strategize for Defeat.

To counter President Bush’s invoking the abandonment of the struggling country of South Viet Nam, we find claims of It Didn’t Happen concerning the bloodbath that history has recorded in Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos, after our ignominious abandonment of the people of South Viet Nam. Even though this claim was first made prior to Bush’s speech before members of the VFW in Kansas City, Missouri, the implication is clear that history must be revised to hide the senseless slaughter that occurred after we were forced into abandoning the Vietnamese as the same abandonment is being advocated for the Iraqi people today.

Not content with revising history that claims the well documented bloodbath did indeed happen, we have Newsweek’s leftist editor, Michael Hirsch telling us, Why America's Pullout From Vietnam Worked, based upon a visit made long after the reeducation camps, the boat people and the persecution of the Montagnard indigenous people of Viet Nam’s Central Highlands happened.

Hirsch glosses over the time from the fall of Saigon in April 1975 to his 1991 visit with the flippant “Yes, a lot of Vietnamese boat people died on the high seas” while ignoring that even senior Communist leaders, such as Colonel Bui Tin, became disillusioned with the Communist Revolution and defected to the west. One Vietnamese lady my wife and I know, who escaped as one of the “Boat People,” only calls this time “a very bad time.” Her husband, who fought with the ARVN, refuses to even return for a visit, fearing for his safety.

Hirsch also seems to have never read the words of the now anti-war Democrat Senator from Virginia, James Webb, in his 1995 article The Triumph of Intellectual Dishonesty. Instead, we read the praises of today’s Viet Nam as they move away from oppressive Communism and towards the Capitalism they were building before we abandoned them. In this regard, Hirsch assures us, “If we leave, Al Qaeda will rant triumphantly on the Web sites and perhaps win more adherents, but that won’t get them any closer to ‘victory’ over us than they are now.”

Similarly, then anti-war activist and now junior Senator John ‘F’in Kerry assured us in his 1971 “testimony” before the Fulbright Commission, “yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America…” while stating he felt only four to five thousand might be killed on the 1971 Dick Cavett Show where he and John O’Neill debated.

History records an astronomically higher number.

Also in their preemptive efforts at discounting General Petraeus’s Report, the Washington Post’s Michael Abramowitz published an article, “Iraq report unlikely to move Bush” where mentions of the progress noted even by some Democrats is barely mentioned and then deep in the article. I see the headline as attempting to paint a picture of Bush ignoring expected bad news, when most familiar with events expect mixed but positive results in progress and implementation of the Troop Reinforcement.

Never one to miss an opportunity to attack the President or the Iraq Theater of the War on Terror, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said through a spokesman, "Further pursuit of the administration's flawed escalation strategy is not in our nation's best interests.”

In a reluctant admission that the reinforcement policy has had success, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi joins Reid in saying, "Whatever improvements in security that may have resulted from the efforts of our troops since the surge began, Iraqi leaders have not done the hard political work on which the future of their country depends. And therefore, the purpose of the surge - to enable the Iraqis to produce political reconciliation - has not been accomplished."

In further efforts of denigrating expected good news from General Petraeus, we see Senators Clinton and Durbin calling for the ouster of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, joining Pelosi in shifting the focus to the Iraqi government not meeting the expectations of the U.S. Congress in the scant few months of time they allotted for unattainable improvements. How can they demand political reconciliation in such a short time in Iraq when, in over 200 years, we in America haven’t successfully achieved it? Granted, we aren’t shooting each other yet, but the Political Divide within the country today is as great as it has ever been and just as hotly debated.

But, it does allow them to continue the effort at creating a failure in Iraq while looking like they praise the efforts of the Troops.

Much like The Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing, leftists try to lull the populace into a false sense of security by advocating appeasement of our enemies and demonizing those of us who see the dangers facing Western Civilization from the radical Jihadist movement spreading across the globe.

History is ignored or revised as leftists claim that even if the reinforcement policy is working, it is years too late. How can it ever be too late to support an ally and prevent more bloodbaths?

Since the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1979, radical Jihadists have attacked American interests no less than 15 times, twice upon our own soil. Their war on us was brought home to us on September 11, 2001. Terrorists have no intention of withdrawing from the battlefield. Three decades of inaction and soft responses to terrorist attacks have emboldened radical Jihadists to hit us harder each time. It is never too late for them to hit us again even harder. It is no longer a matter of ‘if,’ but a matter of ‘when.’

In the same speech where she declares it is too late and the best way to honor our Troops is to bring them home, Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton also speaks of preparing for The New War.

Wouldn’t we do better speaking of winning this war?

Lew

UPDATE: Published in today's Sunday Times (UK), an eyewitness to much of the horror of our leaving Viet Nam speaks out. Abandon Iraq and see a Vietnam horror show. Of particular note, he was opposed to America's mission in Viet Nam then, but now says, "I have always thought that those of us who opposed the American war in Indochina should be extremely humble in the face of the appalling aftermath."