So It IS like Vietnam, After All.

To get back on topic a bit, the general consensus seems to be that Bush ended up looking foolish trying to make the Vietnam-Iraq comparisons. And that's not a partisan view.

Politically, this seems to be a big mistake by the White House. They released transcripts of the speech to the media a day early, giving media and columnists 24 hours to sharpen their knives and find Vietnam experts to quote on how pathetic the comparisons are between the two. Did they really think this was a winning argument? Did they think the 60-something percent of people who thought the war is a mistake (according to most polls) were suddenly going to listen to the speech and think, "Hey, he's right. The war is a great idea!". Big mistake by our Dear Leader.

With this speech, Warner saying we should start some kind of draw down, Peter Pace saying we should bring troops home (check out the LA Times), and the NIE report, it seems like any "the surge is working!" momentum is grinding to halt.

 

Why do Pace and Warner hate America?

 

The Cookie Monster chimes in on the debate about Iraq/Vietnam.

 

Actually, the United States government was "just fine" with the millions killed by the Khmer Rouge, judging from the fact that we armed those butchers against the Vietnamese Army, which happened to be the force that stopped that slaughter.
And Paul O'Neill, a rockribbed Republican CEO, said in his book that they were lining up Iraq BEFORE 9/11. Damn liberal.

 

While it's hard to believe that Old_Tony isn't old enough to correctly remember Vietnam and the Dominoes in Southeast Asia, it's equally implausible to believe he's so old that he's already forgotten the strategic thinkers at the Project for the New American Century.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm

Which puts an attack on Iraq on the drawing board in 1997.

 

More of this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-morale25aug25,0,3144924.story?coll=la-home-center

 

Great lede photo from Spencer Platt of Getty on that piece. It was also the lede photo on this, from the NYT - which won't gladden O_T's heart any, or strengthen his arguments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/25/washington/25policy.html

 

Tony hasn't responded in a while, so I hope he's taking the time to actually read some of this. But I won't hold my breath.

 

This will -- or at least should --make you very, very angry:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle/print

This invasion's real mission has been accomplished. In spades.

 

I'd like to know why so many people want to be the next President knowing full well the amount of crap that will be required to be cleaned up and polished after Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. We're talking 20 years of mismanaged taxpayer money, senseless military battles, ignored enemies, increased illegal immigration, and widening gap of wealth.

 

Because they all have tremendous egos and believe they can be the greatest president our country has ever had.
Wouldn't you have to to run for that office?

 

After reading it, no words here, Joe. Just the anger you predicted.