No, you're not seeing things. The idea of the US being the Democratic party's Vietnam is not far fetched.  Especially now that the party has re-adopted the concept of "Cut and Run".

 Consider this: In 1965, Lyndon Johnson sent the first of 200,000 combat troops into Vietnam. He is convinced by his advisors that the war is winnable. Two years later, in 1967, Robert MacNamara appears before the Senate Subcommitte and declares the bombing of North Vietnam has had no effect on the North's ability to wage war against the US. MacNamara reverses his earlier opinion of the war and now suggests the US pull out of its involvement in Vietnam. In Feb. of 1968, after the Tet offensive, part-time newscaster and part-time foreign policy maker Walter Cronkite declares on his evening broadcast on CBS:"But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could." Immediately afterwards, every Democrat in Congress learns to say a new word:"Dove". The biggest is Eugene MacCarthy who out does President Johnson in the New Hampshire primary. Shortly afterwards, Johnson does his own version of cut-and-run by deciding not to run for President in 1968. Richard Nixon is elected in 1968 on a platform of ending the war as "Peace with Honor". The Democrat-controlled Congress insists on "Peace at any Price". Nixon prevails however and the US involvement in Vietnam ends in 1973. Unfortuneatly, Nixon's involvement in the US Presidency ends in 1974. In 1975 North Vietnam begins the final assault on the South realizing the US will not help. Gerald Ford, under pressure from, again, the Democratic controlled congress announces:"that as far as the U.S. is concerned, the Vietnam War is "finished."

I know it was a bit of the abridged history of the Vietnam War, but the point needs to be made. Every time the US has gone to war for more than a week, the Democrats immediately raise the specter of the Vietnam War and insist we need to pull out. There is no evidence to support that Pelosi and her gang will not do the same if they are empowered on Tuesday. On Wednesday morning House Majority Leader Pelosi will announce that the war on terror is unwinnable and we need to cut our losses and run. President Bush will be forced to withdraw troops from Iraq, leaving the terrorists to re-take Iraq. The Democrats will re-label the terrorists as "freedom-fighters" and vote to send them millions of US tax dollars in foreign aid.(Not really, I just made that part up. On the other hand , tho, you never know)

Laughable? How about these facts: First about Pelosi and her voting record on the war on terror.( Oops sorry, I forgot she doesnt believe we are at war)"Pelosi voted repeatedly against the counterterrorism Patriot Act, opposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security and voted against a resolution condemning the leak of the National Security Agency's highly classified program for monitoring terrorist communications. Pelosi also reportedly told colleagues that she would appoint as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee overseeing America's counterterrorism efforts Rep. Alcee Hastings, an ultra-liberal and at least formerly sleazy Florida Democrat. Hastings was impeached and removed as a federal judge by a Democratic-controlled Congress in 1988-89 on bribery and obstruction of justice charges." (San Diego Union-Tribune, 6 Nov, 2006) and "House Democrats have voted, often by overwhelming margins, against nearly all the pillars of the Bush administration's counterterrorism policy and programs. A majority of House Democrats voted repeatedly against the Patriot Act, against authorizing military tribunals for captured terrorists, against modernizing electronic surveillance legislation to permit monitoring of terrorists by the National Security Agency and against creation of the Department of Homeland Security. and "Twice in the 1990s and twice more since the terrorist attacks in 2001, half or more of House Democrats voted to cut finding for U.S. intelligence agencies. This year, 93 House Democrats voted against the 2007 Defense Authorization bill, which included appropriations for the major U.S. intelligence agencies. "(The San Diego Union-Tribune, 6 Nov 2006)

Why should the Pelosi gang stop there? The policy of "Cut and Run" could also be applied to the economy. Democratic control of the House would mean Pelosi would make New York Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Rangel says he would oppose extending any of the Bush tax cuts past their expiration in 2010 – imposing a huge tax increase on an economy fueled by Bush's first-term tax reductions. In otherwords, he would "Cut and Run" on the growing economy we have now in favor of doubling and tripling taxes in 2010. As always the middle class would bear the biggest part of the tax increases but that wouldnt matter to the Democrats. As long as their precious entitlement programs are safe, who cares who has to pay.

Pick a subject, any subject, and I can give you examples on how the Democrats have practiced "Cut and Run". Immigration? The Democratic Party obviously believes we can't win the battle of illegal immigrants. Thats why more than half of the Democrats in the House voted against the 700 mile fence between the US and Mexico and also voted against increasing the size of the Border Patrol. Family values? Ok lets be honest the Democratic Party "Cut and Run" years ago from family values. Their support of abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and their flip-flop on the question of same-sex marriages proves that. Throw into that mixture their lack of support for the "No Child left Behind" Act, because the NEA told them not to support it, and the issue of family values is dead in the Pelosi party.

The clock is starting to tick. We have some clear choices to make when the sun rises. Do we continue to "Stay the Course" or do we bow to the pressure of the liberals and "Cut and Run". In a strange way it reminds me of the situation faced by the men in the Alamo. I know is warped but follow my logic. You had 188 men against an army of over 7000. The situation was hopeless and they knew it. They could have "Cut and Run", i.e., surrendered but they knew in doing so they would be surrendering not only Texas but the future of their children as well. So they chose to "Stay the Course" even tho it meant sacrificing their lives.

If we "Cut and Run" now will we also not be surrendering the future of our children as well....think about it!