Bullshit Hypophora Is All They’ve Got
It is 2007 and the Wall Street Journal is still calling me out for being an unpatriotic loser.
“Is it uncharitable to suggest that when the fighting erupted in Basra last week between Moqtada al-Sadr’s Madhi Army and the US trained Iraqi army, some opponents of the war hoped it would become George Bush’s Tet Offensive?” — WSJ 4/3/2008<
Are we really still here? Is the case for Iraq still being made in the editorial pages of major American newspapers based on the fact that “some opponents” want us to fail because they hate George Bush and despise America?
Is this an April 1st column that ran two days late?
Fox’s Walls Street Journal baby
It’s the WSJ editorial board. Nobody pays attention to that rubbish. It’s a joke. It’s like Sean Hanity or Glenn Beck. The Onion has more credibility.
Interesting, if you pause to think of what actually happened in the Tet Offensive of 1968. Firstly, Tet ’68 was supposed to ignite a popular uprising by the Vietnamese people – in that regard it was a complete failure.
Secondly, the shift from guerrilla warfare to open warfare resulted in the near complete destruction of the Viet Cong as an effective fighting force. From that point on the war was fought directly between the North and the South, not as a popular insurgency by southerners against their own government. (In Iraq it would be if the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army was decimated, and we ended up fighting the Revolutionary Guard directly.) Basically , we won Tet ’68 on the battlefield.
With that said, what was more important was that Americans saw images on their TV screens of an NVA tank in the Embassy compound, and Walter Cronkite surrendered on behalf of the US. General Vo Nguyen Giap, who had masterminded the offensive, was pleasantly surprised by that result as he had thought he’d gotten his ass kicked.
The “stabbed in the back narrative” is back, of course it never goes away for long.
We could have won in Viet Nam if the liberals let us.
Is that your point G?