Op-ed: Pinkerton on similarities betw...

Op-ed: Pinkerton on similarities between 2007,1971 -

There are 15 comments on the Newsday story from Sep 12, 2007, titled Op-ed: Pinkerton on similarities between 2007,1971 -. In it, Newsday reports that:

It's beginning to look a lot like 1971. For this baby boomer, the current mixture of popular culture and an unpopular foreign war brings back memories.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

SuzieQ

Bronx, NY

#1 Sep 13, 2007
Yes we are still proud Americans although some big mouth's who have the power of the pulpit make us look like we are a bunch of sniveling cowards.

We do want to win this war but are disgusted in the way it is being fought. Bush is a product of the 60/70's anti-establishment drug driven society and he does not have the guts to fight it forefully enough. We should have done the job a long time ago and our soldiers would have been home and so many would not have been hurt or killed.

Bush is a failure as a President and one of the worst along with Clinton who disgraced the presidency.

Let's put these two names far behind us and elect a fresh face who may have the courage to fight to win and get us out of Iraq and close our borders.
italo

Ocala, FL

#2 Sep 13, 2007
Readjust, Jim, You missed by a year!
In 1972, there were only 45,000 US ground troops in Vietnam and it was the last year of the Draft.
In 2008, there will be at least 160,000 US service personnel and at least 160,000 mercenaries (Blackwater, etc.) in Iraq. And, of course, no Draft. But most movies in 1972 were lousy as most movies in 2008 will be --- outside of that, Jim, no similarities.
Italo.
Detective Club of Jersey City.
william jonas

Dallas, TX

#3 Sep 13, 2007
Similarities of course. Outcome, the same? Probably. The greater danger has not even been discussed. The next action by our military.
Who will enlist in an Armed Forces that loses its authorization to conduct operations in the middle of the operation? Where will we find dedicated men and women to serve if there is no support politically or publicly. Quite simply, who will defend us?
Even this. Who will obey orders from a CIC that has been stripped of his command to defend the nation?

Who will risk their neck ? You? The guy two seats over ? Your nephew?
We better think about it because the time is not far off when our internal and external enemies will feel bold enough to really take control of matters.
Iraq is just a skirmish to test our resolve. If we fail there we shall certainly here.
JerryUSA

Chesterfield, MO

#4 Sep 13, 2007
I think what people should do about Hollywood is encourage some of the appropriate organizations to take out ads suggesting that Americans stop going to movie theatres. Ads pointing out Hollywood's hatred of their country and seemingly all that is American. Its ironic that they hate themselves and us for being American as they park their jets in their driveways next to their 20,00 square ft mansions on their 2000 acres of land with 12,000 sq ft air conditioned barns. That will send a message. There are many of us who will give up the so-called entertainment because we love this country. We should send this message. If you hate it so much then leave. Please, don't let the door hit you on the way out you worthless groveling, pansy, marxist, ignoramous; actors, directors, producers anbd every other hollywood nut.
Noticer

Babylon, NY

#6 Sep 13, 2007
"....the following year, 1972, George McGovern, the liberal Democratic presidential nominee - who promised "I will crawl on my knees to Hanoi" to seek a peace deal - was crushingly defeated by Nixon. If the bicoastal elites hated Nixon so much, Middle America reasoned, then he must be doing something right."

Of course, Middle America was very quickly therafter proven wrongheaded, when Nixon was pressured to quit office under a cloud of scandal and abuse of power and impending impeachment.

Besides the Watergate scandal, it came out that he'd employed federal security agencies to spy on and violate the rights of American citizens for political opposition, dissent, and/or civil rights and peace activism. Some of the targets of FBI surveillance under Nixon included such dangerous terrorists as Martin Luther King and John Lennon.

So - who knows - if the American people really can overcome their apparent political amnesia and take a lesson from fairly recent history, perhaps they'll resist once again giving into knee-jerk reactionism and susceptibility to smear tactics and single-brush tarring by the right. Could happen, I guess.
Noticer

Babylon, NY

#9 Sep 13, 2007
SuzieQ wrote:
Yes we are still proud Americans although some big mouth's who have the power of the pulpit make us look like we are a bunch of sniveling cowards.
We do want to win this war but are disgusted in the way it is being fought. Bush is a product of the 60/70's anti-establishment drug driven society and he does not have the guts to fight it forefully enough. We should have done the job a long time ago and our soldiers would have been home and so many would not have been hurt or killed.
Bush is a failure as a President and one of the worst along with Clinton who disgraced the presidency.
Let's put these two names far behind us and elect a fresh face who may have the courage to fight to win and get us out of Iraq and close our borders.
Suzie, we were told going in that "the job" was to "disarm Saddam" of WMDs. Remember? It was a "pre-emptive" strike.

Turned out, of course, that that particular "job" hadn't even required doing. So, please, enlighten us. What exactly IS "the job" you refer to that should have been done?

If it was all one huge, horrific mistake, then "the job" should have been to make whatever inadequate reparations we could have, apologize sincerely to the Iraqi people, and withdraw.

If we were, instead, simply lied to about what "the job" was all along, then why on EARTH should we trust or believe what those very same liars are telling us is "the job" now?
Howard

United States

#10 Sep 13, 2007
If Islaminuts in America would start gutting and beheading left wing Democrats and Hollywierd maggots, they would get lots of support. A mushroom cloud over Hollywood would be a beautiful sight. Of course, Terrorists don't really want kill their friends in The Terrorists Rights Party.
Noticer

Babylon, NY

#11 Sep 13, 2007
william jonas wrote:
Similarities of course. Outcome, the same? Probably. The greater danger has not even been discussed. The next action by our military.
Who will enlist in an Armed Forces that loses its authorization to conduct operations in the middle of the operation? Where will we find dedicated men and women to serve if there is no support politically or publicly. Quite simply, who will defend us?
Even this. Who will obey orders from a CIC that has been stripped of his command to defend the nation?
Who will risk their neck ? You? The guy two seats over ? Your nephew?
We better think about it because the time is not far off when our internal and external enemies will feel bold enough to really take control of matters.
Iraq is just a skirmish to test our resolve. If we fail there we shall certainly here.
Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. Most people are able to discern a REAL threat to our nation as a whole over a threat to our buildings and shopping plazas and groups of citizens.

One way you can tell is if the children of our elitist elected officials - including all those championing our catastrophe in Iraq - actually encouraged their sons and daughters to go there and fight.

They don't, today. They look down upon service in the armed forces as something to be undertaken by the working class and poor. Why? Because they know these military misadventures are being waged on behalf of corporate arms dealers, mercenaries, and energy organizations, NOT in any kind of defense of our nation's sovereignty and its people's freedom.

If a real and true threat to America actually raises its ugly head, you can be sure that our youth - privilged and underprivileged alike - will be flocking to recruitment officers to defend their homeland.
Peter913

United States

#12 Sep 13, 2007
There are two similarities between 2007 & 1971. Politicians & Journalists. Both should be banned from the battle field until the war is over, when the generals say it's over.

Rummy the "Pol" screwed up with only 160K of soldiers when Saddam needed 400K+ to keep the natives in line.

Journalists & their publishers, that's what the "yellows" call themselves today, need to be BALANCED and not lean to Port ALL THE TIME!!

The Pols & Journalists will loose us this war like they did in Nam.

Soldiers are trained to kill the enemy; let them do it as they see fit.
Noticer

Babylon, NY

#13 Sep 15, 2007
Peter913 wrote:
There are two similarities between 2007 & 1971. Politicians & Journalists. Both should be banned from the battle field until the war is over, when the generals say it's over.
Rummy the "Pol" screwed up with only 160K of soldiers when Saddam needed 400K+ to keep the natives in line.
Journalists & their publishers, that's what the "yellows" call themselves today, need to be BALANCED and not lean to Port ALL THE TIME!!
The Pols & Journalists will loose us this war like they did in Nam.
Soldiers are trained to kill the enemy; let them do it as they see fit.
Unfettered military rule, then, is your answer, right? Sounds sort of scary, to this American.

There's a good reason why we have, to this point at least, civilian control over the military in this nation.

When one is highly trained to be a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail.
Noticer

Babylon, NY

#14 Sep 15, 2007
Howard wrote:
If Islaminuts in America would start gutting and beheading left wing Democrats and Hollywierd maggots, they would get lots of support. A mushroom cloud over Hollywood would be a beautiful sight. Of course, Terrorists don't really want kill their friends in The Terrorists Rights Party.
If the likes of you ran this nation an invasion would be needed to liberate it.
Rnntv com

Shohola, PA

#15 Sep 15, 2007
ENCLOSED IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH......PERIOD.....

THE PENTAGON KNEW 5 YEARS BEFORE THE END OF THE VIETNAM WAR THAT IT WAS LOST!

THE ADMINISTRATION & THE JOINT CHIEFS ARE GUILTY OF DERELICTION OF DUTY BOTH FOR IRAQ 2003 AND VIETNAM.

Propaganda is to democracy what violence is to dictatorship.

Ignorant masses who have to be marginalized for their own good.
Rnntv com

Shohola, PA

#16 Sep 15, 2007
Propaganda is to democracy what violence is to dictatorship.

Ignorant masses who have to be marginalized for their own good.

Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News
March 13, 2005
http://tinyurl.com/ko7ap
It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in January, described the administration's determination to open markets for American farmers.

To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the Agriculture Department's office of communications.
Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/13...
lawman

New York, NY

#17 Sep 19, 2007
I realize that this equation of 2008 with 1972 is simple speculation, but you should refrain from wishful thinking. In 1972 George McGovern managed to anger his own party in a big way (remember his delegation's removal of Mayor Daley's delegation at the 1972 Convention? Thomas Eagleton? the "$1,000 for everyone" proposal?). Richard Nixon simply picked up those Democratic voters who had gone for George Wallace, or not voted, in 1968 (i.e. those Democrats who were already sick of their Party's policies, but did not yet want to go Republican, in 1968; MocGovern in 1972 just pushed them over the line).
This time around there are many people angry with the Democratic Congress, but there's no inclination there to vote Republican. There's no 3rd party movement in sight like there was in 1968 or 1992 (It's been said that people vote for 3rd parties when they're disgusted with their traditional party, but are not quite ready to go to the other party; the 3rd party vote is kind of a halfweay house between the old party and the new)votes In 1992 H. Ross Perot got 90% of his votes from Republicans who were angry either with the Bush recession or the GOP's social policies; in 1996 many of these social liberals simply completed their party switch and voted for Clinton).
There is no such group of voters in the Democratic Party, but there might be one in the Republican Party. With the Foley-Vitter-Craig etc. scandalspree, the immigration schism, the War in Iraq, etc. there could be many Buchananites and "American Conservative" types who so hate the "NeoCons" that they'll either sit out the election (or vote for a Ron Paul-like 3rd Party).
The Republican Party is in disarray, and I think the Democrats, led by Hillary, will win big in 2008.
The only alternative I can see is that Giuliani or McCain manage to get Hillary's goat so badly that she loses her cool and does things that will scare away the independents. Otherwise, she's already got the nomination won, and so long as she keeps her cool we're going to have Billary for the next eight years.
Simon Newman

Crowle, UK

#18 Sep 19, 2007
Another excellent article. As a foreign observer I had trouble understanding how the USA could re-elect Bush in 2004, when Iraq had already emerged as a massive disaster. This analysis goes a long way to explaining it - that Hollywood leftism is just *so annoying* to mainstream Americans, it can short-circuit logic and drive them into the arms of the Republicans.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Joe Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sarah Silverman, Susan Sarandon Ignite DNC Cele... (Jul '16) Jul '16 Responsibility 6
News A Look Back at 10 of the Most Iconic 'Gay' Films (Oct '13) Oct '13 JohnInToronto 32
News Laid-back setting with eclectic feel (May '09) May '09 John 6
News Is Catholicism trendy? (Sep '08) Sep '08 Jeff Spiccoli 6
News Susan Sarandon stars in Iraq tale 'Valley of El... (Sep '07) Sep '07 scotto 44
News Don't deny that some Muslims are hot for jihad (Apr '06) Apr '06 Bill 9
More from around the web