History According to the Guardian

You'll have to admit that I've been reasonable, and haven't been bashing the Guardian anywhere near as often as I could have been. I'm resisting the urge, so that this blog be interesting, not drearily predictable (as the Guardian is... Oops!).

Matter of fact, even today I'm not going to link to any of their daily anti-Israel fare. No. What I'd like to call your attention to is a comment that appeared in yesterday's Leader (editorial), and was then repeatedly echoed elsewhere in the paper and the online comments, all following George Bush's "Vietnam speech". Wisely or not, plausibly or not, Bush stated that a premature American exit from Iraq might cause as much human misery as the exit from Vietnam did. The reaction at the Guardian was an outburst of indignant spluttering, along the line of "How dare he invoke history!":

His view of the US withdrawal from Vietnam, though shared by some Republicans, is bizarre too. It was not withdrawal but intervention in neighbouring Cambodia that led to the killing fields. Anger at American bombing (intended to disrupt North Vietnam's supply lines) brought down the Cambodian government and triggered the Khmer Rouge's brutal revolution.

Well, perhaps. I think it is reasonably documented that the American intervention in Cambodia did contribute to the ability of the Khmer Rouge to reach power (after the Americans had left, one might add). But I don't see how that has anything to do with the genocide the Khmer Rouge then inflicted on their own people, which seemed to be the point Bush was making.

Yes, the Guardianistas and their millions of ilk despise America, not only Israel (the dislikes are connected). But pinning all human misery on the Americans won't really work.