Bush Gets Away with Lies, Lies and More Lies in History-Illiterate America

Larry Beinhart, AlterNet, August 27, 2007

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. /

George Bush and other Iraq War supporters have argued that if we withdraw from Iraq the result will be like the killing fields of Cambodia -- an odd comparison considering that the US has direct responsibility for that holocaust.

Here are the facts:

* The killing fields were real. The genocide against their own people was committed by the Khmer Rouge.

* The Vietnamese -- the Communist Vietnamese -- were the people who went in and put a stop to it.

* The United States then supported the Khmer Rouge.

Here's how that came to happen.

The United States got involved in the war in Vietnam in an attempt to keep South Vietnam from going communist. Which it would have if nationwide elections had been held as promised.

Cambodia is next to Vietnam. It was ruled by Prince Sihanouk. He attempted to be neutral. Both sides abused that neutrality.

The North Vietnamese send arms, support and men through Cambodia on the "Ho Chi Minh Trail" to go around South Vietnamese and American forces. They also used Cambodian ports.

The United States, which was not at war with Cambodia, officially or unofficially, secretly sent armed forces into Cambodia to interrupt North Vietnamese use of that route. In 1969, Nixon began a campaign of carpet bombing sections of Cambodia. Ultimately about 750,000 Cambodians were killed by the bombings (though the numbers are hard to verify.)

In 1970, while Sihanouk was out of the country, visiting Europe, the USSR and China, Lon Nol took over the country in a right wing coup.

There are two stories about American involvement. The first is that we supported the coup, the second (in Tom Weiner's Legacy of Ashes, The History of the CIA) is that it took the CIA and the United States by surprise. Recently declassified documents support Weiner's view.

In either case, once Lon Nol took power, the US supported him. In return, Lon Nol ended the neutrality, closed the ports to the communists and demanded that the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese leave the country, and let US forces openly, though secretly, operate in Cambodia.

There was resistance to Lon Nol. Some of it was certainly a spontaneous matter of national sentiment. Some of it was certainly fomented by various communist interests.

Sihanouk, in China, then allied himself with the Khmer Rouge, Cambodia communists, which conferred new legitimacy on them.

Civil War broke out. Lon Nol was both corrupt and inept. In spite of American financial and military support, he lost.

America left Vietnam in 1973.

The Khmer Rouge took the capital of Cambodia in 1975. They were one of the most horrendous regimes in history. They practiced a kind of class genocide, "re-educating" and murdering anyone who educated or Westernized, as well as minority groups.

In 1978, Vietnam, by then fully Communist, invaded Cambodia to put a stop to the Khmer Rouge and drive them out. They installed a more moderate and sane regime.

The United States, the UK, and China then supported the remnants of the Khmer Rouge. With their help the conflict continued for another ten years.
When George Bush, or anyone else, uses the Cambodian holocaust as a warning of what might happen if America withdraws from Iraq, remember the facts.

1. Part of the holocaust in Cambodia is directly attributable to American bombing. The 750,000 dead. (Comparable to the number of Iraqis killed by American forces in this war.)

2. The civil war that led to the victory of the Khmer Rouge came about, at least in part, because of America's support of Lon Nol.

3. The "enemy," the Vietnamese Communists, were the ones who put a stop to the Khmer Rouge.

4. The United States supported the Khmer Rouge -- after their murders, after the genocide.

That support helped a civil war continue for another decade. More death, more destruction.

--Larry Beinhart is the author of Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin.

His novels include Wag the Dog, on which the film was based, and The Librarian which Rolling Stone described as "John Grisham meets Jon Stewart."

LMAO. It's funny to watch frustrated liberals try to legitimize their hatred.

If we pull out now, the war will be over here on our land.

__________________
"Tude"

" A good attitude will get you through almost anything"

Its even more funny you deny it, and even more funny how you try and label ppl, and you have no clue.

Sure it will, all these losers are gonna get on a plane or boat and make it over here alive, try again.

No clue about what?

For starters I am not a liberal, and second it seems you take everything bush says about this occupation as factual.

Not a liberal? Let me guess, moderate and independent. LOL

LOL, your not liberal. Oh yeah... your one of those "moderates". No problem brother I'm a moderate too.


Actually I don't agree with Bush on the War in Iraq. Personally I think his bad decisions and poor leadership has allowed the DIMS to politicize the war and allow them the opportunity to support Al Queda under the protection of their elected office.

In the beginning I didn't think we should have invaded Iraq. I thought it was a mistake. The evidence I saw the President use was from the Clinton administration. I also never heard the President mention a plan on how they where going to reorganize the country and keep it from falling into a civil war in which it did. With all this said, I do believe that being Iraq is keeping America Safe. I believe we have AL Queda (the organization) resources stretched. I would rather have 1 million Iraqi civilians killed, then 1 American civilan killed by a terrorist on our soil. I don't have a problem with Iraq being in a civil war. When they're killing each other it makes it easier on our soliders.

Thats funny, dubya's lack of commander in chief abilities and you spin it on dems. Its proven that Iraq is incapable and incompetent at taking care of the smallest problems, they are not even capable of taking over a completed project (infrastructure rebuilds) and running them. They allow it to go to shambles and we pour more more money to the stupid. So if this is allowing the dems to not support Iraq, then good, the ppl are not capable of their own leadership.

I say support the troops to be their, cut off all funds to other Iraq projects (they can sell their oil and pay) and take care of issues here, if thats not possible for pubs then its evident they are more supportive of other countries than their own, Dubya would rather try and spread his version of democracy and make us pay for it, thats not our problem. And the big pub fear mongering that all these ppl are gonna snap their fingers and come here to fight is a pipe dream.