I'd like to discuss here Mark Shield's recent take on the Iraq funding issue that was in the Star & Tribune today. Mark Shields seems to believe that what this is all about is who will be blamed. Here's a quote:
Still, the high political stakes of the continuing debate over funding the war in Iraq were starkly put by Republican Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri: "If we pass legislation that loses the war, then the people who vote to pass the legislation that ends the war are going to own it. That failure will be their [read, Democrats'] failure."
He goes on to discuss how Dem's were blamed for losing both China and Vietnam. More after the fold.
I'm not familiar enough with the politics of the 50's, 60's or 70's to know to what extent the Democrats were blamed for losing China and Vietnam. I've always thought that Truman's staying out of China was brilliant. I've read a lot of Chinese history over the years and if people think Vietnam was a quagemire, what would have China been? For people to blame the Democrats on China totally ignores the complexity on the ground that existed there. The same could be said for Iraq. I've wondered a number of times if what some have said about Bush is true, that he didn't even know that there were different Moslem groups, the Sunnis and the Shiites, in Iraq.
I'd like this diary to be an opportunity to discuss whether you believe Shield's to be correct, and whether you think Democrats were blamed on China and Vietnam and if so, how did that effect the party?