Are Congressional Dem's scared of being blamed?

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?

•  Yes, and they're putting that ahead of...

  ...using their Constitutional powers to end the war and to save the lives of the troops.

  I'm so fucking ashamed of them.

  by dov12348 on Wed May 23, 2007 at 05:42:30 AM PDT

•  This is what they should

  be afraid of being blamed for: persisting and increasing disaster.

  by wozzle on Wed May 23, 2007 at 05:44:41 AM PDT

•  In a word

  Yes.

  And I didn't even need BIMP's nifty machine with all the sound effects to answer that.

  by DisNoir36 on Wed May 23, 2007 at 05:45:21 AM PDT

•  Kind Of A Shame That The World's Sole ...

  superpower has debates about foreign policy that can be summarized in this fashion by Shields. F our historical political baggage. Once we do that we realize that our presence in Iraq is our cancer. Points to the political party that removes it, regardless of what has happened over the last 60 years.

  by HL Mungo on Wed May 23, 2007 at 05:48:39 AM PDT

•  I came of age in the 60s

  Here is my take on Vietnam.

  The protestors,though there were many of us, were regarded as anti-American, unpatriotic, dirty, sleazy, disrespectful hippies.   Even when many of the issues the protestors brought to light were proven years later to be right on; even when the lies and manipulation of the Nixon administration were revealed, many still refuse to accept reality.  People like Rove and Bush (either the nerdy superpatriot or the frat boy who only gave a damn about partying) had been planning their revenge for three decades!

  And now that they and their ilk OWN and control the media, their spin works.   The constant myth of all the returning troops being spit upon still is spun (yes, I am sure there are some incidents where it was true;  just like I know there are some military troups who raped and pillaged.....in the human being reality, all groups, no matter what their inspiring goal have bad apples)

  In my opinion, YES, the dems are still blamed for the "loss" in Vietnam. The hero of worship of Reagan speaks volumes.   Vietnam was based on the "domino" theory and regardless of how false that has proven to be, the corporate pundits who own the airwaves still have been able to keep it going.  Just like, the corporate owned punditry refuses to acknowledge that it was the Reagan administration who armed and supported Bin Laden in Afghanistan for years.  

  I have more to say on this but I must go to work.

  One more quick thing; Shields is only partly right.     A huge reason the dems do not have the balls to fight the wingnuts is because the citizenry who do not believe in the Bush administrations crap, DO NOTHING.
  And SOME of the antiwar people refuse to support candidates unless they tow their line....and in the end, in places where I live, right wing nutcases don't even work hard to win because the dems do not vote in large numbers and the left anti-war group refuse to vote for a centrist ......so we get the worst, pro war, pro Bush religious nuts in the district year after year after year.

  by Jjc2006 on Wed May 23, 2007 at 05:55:11 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for your thoughtful insight

    I was surprised to read in Shield's article that Dem's were blamed about China, I should have known better. Even if you do the right thing, your opponents will find a way to make hay.

    by kkjohnson on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:07:07 AM PDT

•  By Passing the Iraq War Supplemental

  The death warrant for hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqis will be signed. Who do we blame?

  And what about the theft of $100billion from our pockets against our will to pay for these killings? Who do we blame?

  by GW Chimpzilla on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:38:21 AM PDT