From ABC News of 22 Aug 2007:
Quote:
http://The President's Surprisin...q War: Vietnam
Bush avoided comparison with Vietnam for two reasons, said Thomas Biersteker, a professor of international relations at Brown University and a Vietnam War expert.
"He chose to distance himself from Vietnam because of his own lack of involvement and because Vietnam is generally not considered a resounding success in popular memory. It is striking that he has begun to rely on arguments strikingly similar to those of Richard Nixon," Biersteker told ABCNEWS.com...
"I think it's really regrettable to me that the president really has learned nothing from Vietnam," said Bernie Reilly, a West Point graduate, Vietnam vet and father of a son who has served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"It is perfectly right to compare Iraq with Vietnam," said Barry Romo of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. "We got into Vietnam with a lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and we got into Iraq with a lie about WMD."
|
An AP(?) report details the irony in George Jr's latest speech.
Quote:
Over the past year, Bush has tempered his endorsement of al-Maliki. When they met in Jordan last November, the president called al-Maliki "the right guy for Iraq." Now, he continually prods al-Maliki to do more to forge political reconciliation before the temporary military buildup ends.
"I think there's a certain level of frustration with the leadership in general, inability to work _ come together to get, for example, an oil revenue law passed or provincial elections," Bush said.
While the Iraqi parliament has recessed for the month of August, the president said lawmakers already had passed 60 pieces of legislation and have a budget process that distributes money from the central government to provinces.
He stressed U.S. commitment in Iraq, yet laid the political problems at Baghdad's doorstep.
"The fundamental question is, Will the government respond to the demands of the people? And, if the government doesn't demand _ or respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government. That's up to the Iraqis to make that decision, not American politicians."
|
The Kansas City speech was a change in George Jr's rhetoric. Previously, he complained that Iraq had not even passed legislation to share oil wealth with the provinces. That the government had met almost none of the objectives demanded by the American government. Suddenly George Jr is claiming that the oil wealth is being shared despite no legislation. That they have made all these accomplishments. Whereas George Jr seriously tempered his support for Maliki while in Canada, the speech next day in Kansas City included an endorsement of Maliki.
Why the conflicting message? Implied is infighting or indecision within a White House that is usually careful to restrict all access to thoughts inside that administration. When asked about what appeared to be diminished support for Maliki (from that article), "National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters that Bush continued to have confidence in the prime minister and that his level of support had not changed."
The fact that George Jr is now trying to compare Iraq to Vietnam is, well, how many here so often denied that relationship: Deja vue Nam. Both wars were created by lies, fought without a strategic objective, and had no exit strategy defined by that strategic objective.
Just another example of seeing the school bus OR worrying about all school buses (which was the point in that post). Whereas Yesman065 sees accomplishment in skirmishes, the strategic objective is clearly not being achieved as more participation in the Maliki government is withdrawing, as the conflict moves into new provinces, and as refugees are now leaving the country in same numbers - something estimated to exceed 50,000 every month - not including an increasing number of refugees in other parts of Iraq.
Reporters note the surprise, contradiction, and political dangers of comparing an American defeat in Vietnam with Iraq.
08-22-2007, 07:14 AM
Hybrid Mode
