The left is not concerned with the consequences of American defeat. Not in Iraq. And not in Vietnam. They don’t care if the real evil prevails so long as we, the scapegoat, lose. If several million people need to die for that to happen, well that’s OK too.

Case and point:

And then there’s Jane Fonda, who is once again protesting a war. During the Vietnam conflict, Ms. Fonda actually rooted for the enemy to win. She did apologize, but has never really explained her thinking:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BERRY: Ms. Fonda, we just wanted to follow up on the question about the people who died. And after people died in Vietnam, what about - what do you think might happen to the Iraqis? Are you concerned about what will happen to the Iraqis if we leave?

JANE FONDA, ACTRESS: I’m concerned about what’s happening to the Iraqis right now.

BERRY: What do you think about what happened to the three million Vietnamese and Cambodians who died after the U.S. troops left Vietnam?

FONDA: It’s too bad that we caused it to happen by going in there in the first place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

So according to Jane Fonda, America, we, caused the North Vietnamese to murder a million of their own people after the war was over and the Khmer Rouge two kill two million human beings in Cambodia after we left! We did that. Some force of nature somewhere.

Are you getting the picture here? You want more? Here’s Susan Sarandon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BERRY: One more question, Ms. Sarandon. Are you worried about civilian casualties in Iraq if the U.S. troops pull out of there?

SUSAN SARANDON: Do you know how many civilian casualties there’s been already in Iraq? 650,000.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Six hundred fifty thousand? Well that’s Susan Sarandon and the far left’s number. The Brookings Institution, however, says about 59,000 Iraqi civilians were killed as of last July. The U.N. number is 150,000.

Pathetic. In these peoples’ minds we caused the ethnic cleansing bloodbath that followed Vietnam. Talk about misplaced criticism. The reality is quite different. But then, look at who we’re talking about here. These clowns are several zip codes removed from reality.

What actually happened in the non-liberal-bizzaro world is that we betrayed every one of the 3 million+ victimes when we allowed the bloodbath to happen by chickening out in a fight that we were winning handily. They don’t understand that the ethnic cleansing, genocide, societal reprogramming, systematic rape, torture, and executions of huge portions of the population were exactly the kind of thing that we were there to prevent in the first place. Because that’s the kind of shit that happens under communist regimes and that’s what we were trying to keep contained. Whether we quit early or never went in the first place, our guilt is in standing by and letting it happen because we didn’t have the stomach or the good sense to stop it. And it was certainly within our power to stop it.

Now look where we find ourselves. On the precipice of another widthdrawl just within reach of victory. On the verge of yet another human tragedy which is within our power to prevent. Do these anti-war kooks care about what’s going to happen if we chicken out again? Not in the slightest. They didn’t care then, and they don’t care now. All they care about is seeing America fall flat on its face. And when we widthdraw and the bloodbath occurs, will they feel even the slightest guilt for being involved in the advocacy of the widthdrawal? Not in the slightest. They’ll tell themselves that we caused it by going there in the first place. Little things like the wars that Saddam started and the mass graves that he filled are kept neatly out of sight, out of mind.

Facts and reason have never had anything to do with liberalism, Mr. Obama.

That’s the sound of my B.S. alarm alerting me to the proximity of utter nonsense.

?The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact,? the Illinois Democrat wrote in ?The Audacity of Hope,? a memoir published last year.

Yeah. Name one argument where liberals base their views on reason and fact. They are far and few between. From deferring our foreign policy to the whims of the world community to manmade global warming hysteria to whether the word “is” really means what it means. Negotiating with Iran to stabilize Iraq? Socialized healthcare? This is reasonable? This stuff has its foundation in fact?

Get real Obama.

Didn’t read book. Don’t plan to.

It’s the old joke.

How many punks does it take to change a light-bulb?

Trick question - Punks can’t change anything.

Anti-war protestors nonetheless spray-painted the capitol building, and various groups smashed windows and otherwise vandalized recruitment centers around the country, in the mistaken belief that teenage misbehavior will somehow curb policy they don’t like.

Considering that these people are so politically motivated, you’d think they’d take the time to figure out simple facts about our government.

Namely, you cannot change a policy you don’t like by committing petty crimes.

It’s infuriating to think that these people actually believe they’re going to change things by putting themselves in a position where they can deface public property, and then cry foul when the police arrest them or they find themselves trampled by a mob. The way to change policy is through the systems already in place, through the rational argument of a position before your peers and the government that, ostensibly, serves you. You will not motivate your constituents by spending an hour shouting at policemen and three days in jail with a black eye.

What is always amazing about liberals is that nothing an outsider can say about them could ever hope to top their own ability to self parody. Here we see some college liberals illustrating the point:

Allow me to explicate the message here. We were wrong to send troops into an area where tyranny was the rule of the day and mass killings were commonplace. We should, however, immediately send troops into an area where mass killings are commonplace.

So what’s the difference? Self interest. Apparently, to that squishy mess loosely identified as a “brain” allegedly located within a liberal’s skull, the addition of self interest to the equation is a negative factor. Not only was Saddam murdering his own people, but he was opposing America as well! “I would have supported going into Iraq to free the Iraqis, but I can’t now that I think we might gain something from it at the same time. NO WAR FOR OIL.”

It would be sad enough if this were the end of the contortions leftists put themselves through so that they can, in all things at all times, be in opposition to America - but alas, the plot thickens. Afraid that we may actually take action, leaving leftists suddenly on the side of that Great Satan, one decided to engage in a preemptive attack, attempting to frame any action in Darfur as…you guessed it…FOR OIL.

Newly discovered resources have made Sudan of great interest to U.S. corporations. It is believed to have oil reserves rivaling those of Saudi Arabia. It has large deposits of natural gas. In addition, it has one of the three largest deposits of high-purity uranium in the world, along with the fourth-largest deposits of copper.

Unlike Saudi Arabia, however, the Sudanese government has retained its independence of Washington. Unable to control Sudan?s oil policy, the U.S. imperialist government has made every effort to stop its development of this valuable resource. China, on the other hand, has worked with Sudan in providing the technology for exploration, drilling, pumping and the building of a pipeline and buys much of Sudan?s oil.

Thank god we have the impeccably credentialed Sara Flounders (she traveled to Sudan once, with Ramsey Clarke no less!) to unravel this imperialistic conspiracy of monumental proportions. Those damn Sudanese just refuse to join the Chimpy McHitlerburton global oil conglomerate.

I know what you’re thinking. Isn’t Darfur an issue being championed by the left? Silly you. Not so fast says our intrepid reporter, who bravely shadowed Ramsey Clarke around the ruins of an aspirin factory 9 years ago. The real players behind the move to “save Darfur” are “right-wing evangelical Christians” and “Zionists”. And just in case we weren’t clear on this point, she concludes her 7th grade civics report by reminding us that U.S. imperialism is to blame for…well, everything.

The U.S. and European imperialist powers are responsible for the genocidal slave trade that decimated Africa, the genocide of the Indigenous population of the Americas, the colonial wars and occupations that looted three-quarters of the globe. It was German imperialism that was responsible for the genocide of the Jewish people. To call for military intervention by these same powers as the answer to conflicts among the people of Darfur is to ignore 500 years of history.

And she has a point, because we all know Africa was a land of sunshine and flowers before the evil imperialists showed up to start trading slaves and fornicating in their cheerios…what? You mean they already had slaves in Africa before the West arrived? You don’t say! Muslim slavers? It can’t be! African tribes enslaving other African tribes? Surely you jest!

Mrs. Flounders should consider partnering with this intellectual heavy-weight:

Why, with their powers combined, we imperialists, trapped in our “logical” modes of analysis, can’t even hope to imagine everything they’ll be able to blame on America.

Occasionally people learn from mistakes. This is one of those times. The other day, regarding attemps by some to let Iran off the hook, I asked, “Have we not learned from Saddam’s tactics?”

Well, I’ve been answered.

The US has rejected a call from the head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog for a “timeout” in the showdown with Iran over its nuclear programme.

The US ambassador to the UN said the sanctions already being applied against Iran were not open to reinterpretation.

Sanity prevails. . .for once.

Hanoi Jane and her degenerate hoodlum komrades were out in force in the capitol for a fun day of waterboarding and wholesome treason.

And how better to demostrate your patriotism and support for the troops than by vandalizing the capitol and spitting on war heroes. The left is always finding new ways to make this war look like Vietnam.

In my opinion, out of respect for Jane Fonda, we need to cut out this “Hanoi” nickname buisiness. Sure, she did the anti-aircraft photo-op with the NVA and all that. But that’s all in the past now. It’s time to move on to the present and call her something more appropriate. Personally, I’m fond of “Durka Jane”. She’s working hard for our Islamist enemies and we can’t let this effort go unrecognized. So, here’s to you, Durka Jane.

Finally, a holiday I can take seriously. We should all use Milton Friedman Day as an opportunity to reflect on the importance of freedom (choice) in our lives, and look for all the ways in which our freedom to choose has eroded over time.

Taking a page right out of the playbook of the late Saddam, Iran is now obstructing the efforts of inspectors it said would be allowed access. What’s worse, Elbaradei is doing exactly what Ahmadinejad wants in calling for a “timeout”.

Iran has demanded the removal of the UN official in charge of inspecting the country’s nuclear programme, diplomats have said.

The official, Chris Charlier, has already been banned from entering Iran.

Iran has the right to reject inspectors from the UN’s nuclear agency, the IAEA, that it does not want.

. . .The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, said there will still enough inspectors left in Iran to do the job.

He called for a “timeout” in the standoff over Iran’s nuclear programme, saying “Iran should stop enriching uranium and the international community should take a timeout from implementing sanctions”.

Have we not learned from Saddam’s tactics? Iran’s entire reason for conceding any ground (letting inspectors in, which they won’t end up doing anyway, as we now see) is to buy time. A “timeout” is the worst possible thing we could do at this point, as it would A) allow Tehran more time to develop its weapons and B) encourage more obstruction down the road.

The situation in Iraq is not particularly hard to break down from an historic point of view, though it gets much more complicated when you get down to details. That said, the overall method to win against an insurgent enemy is not particular hard, even for laymen, to understand. To defeat an insurgency you must demoralize their forces to the point they no longer believe they can win. We have, so far, utterly resisted most tactics capable of accomplishing this goal. In addition, some very loud and prominent voices have done all they can throughout the course of the war to prove to the enemy that we have no stomach for a prolonged engagement, which has served to sustain their hopes of victory.

One area in which our efforts have been unnecessarily limited has been in our dealings with Iranian interference in Iraq. News that the administration is preparing a more serious stance against Iranian meddling brings hope that the “surge” may be more than just show.

I’m moving the Compendium Files to a different location/format, and the various links have been updated to reflect this change. In addition, the Compendium Files are now set up in a wiki. However, access to edit the pages is restricted, currently only to myself but soon to other Compendium contributors. You’ll notice links to some of the files are no longer up on the right, as those pages have not yet been moved over. This is primarily because I feel these pages need a lot of additional work/updating anyway, but they should return soon.