Thursday, August 23, 2007

Bush says Iraq is just like Vietnam.

W. says we should have stayed the course in Vietnem:

"One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 'reeducation camps' and 'killing fields.'" [The White House]

And, as if that's not ridiculous enough, he then throws the war with Japan (all of Asia, in fact) along with the kitchen sink and wraps the whole thing around the WOT. They're not too desperate are they?

"Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility -- but the terrorists see it differently."

Oh yes, and they also see that you said you'd smoke OBL out and that you'd bring him in "dead or alive." Whatever happened to that W? What does that do for our credibility? Bring 'em on!

Anyway, I'm glad he's finally embraced the Vietnam analogy. As usual, though, he's totally twisted that analogy. I'm not a big John Kerry fan, but he nailed-it right on the head when he said:

"Half of the soldiers whose names are on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after the politicians knew our strategy would not work. The lesson is to change the strategy, not just to change the rhetoric."

Ted Kennedy said, "[The United States] lost the war in Vietnam because our troops were trapped in a distant country we did not understand, supporting a government that lacked sufficient legitimacy with its people." [WaPo]

I'm just kind of wondering who W.'s handlers think is going to suddenly decide that 'yeah, you know, if we had just stayed the course in Vietnem, we could have won'? Those old coots he had as a captive audience might think the soldiers who fought in Vietnam were a bunch of drug addicts and losers and the politicians (i.e. Democrats) lost the war at home, but no one else is going to swallow this tripe.

I found this line sort of interesting:

"There is no power like the power of freedom and no soldier as strong as a soldier who fights for a free future for his children."

Whose children are the soldiers dying in Iraq fighting for? Al-Maliki's? Is W. implying that they'd better get the job done quick so their kids won't have to go?

How old are the twins now anyway? If W. really believes that the "defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice" and "love of freedom is the mightiest force of history," then why isn't he sending his daughters to Iraq?


Post a Comment

<< Home

hit counter script Top Blog Lists Favourite Blogs Top List
My Zimbio
Top Stories