Skip to main content

Bush to invoke Vietnam in arguing against Iraq pullout

In which our History Revisitionist in Chief makes a valiant effort to buck up public support for the war by inserting the ol' "Protesters Lost Vietnam" conserative trope.  

"Whatever your position in that debate, 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,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields,' " the president will say.

The part I want to comment on is this:

"While it is true that the Korean War had its share of challenges, America never broke its word," Bush will say. "Without America's intervention during the war, and our willingness to stick with the South Koreans after the war, millions of South Koreans would now be living under a brutal and repressive regime."

Here's my question for young Vietnam Bush circa 1969:  "If we pull out of Vietnam, will a future generation 30 years from now live under a brutal and repressive regime?"

The whole pro-Vietnam War argument was that we had to save them from the horrors of a brutal government.  Now they're our ally and they make our cheap shoes.  Vietnam war advocates were proven wrong by simple history.

But why did the WH produce a speech that brings up the pro-Vietnam War arguments?  They can't seriously think it's going to change some peoples' minds about Vietnam.  I think they've stopped talking to the rest of us now, their base is the only audience they have left.

It's like a Dog Whistle except all the rest of us can hear it too and it sounds really nuts.

Originally posted to dscowboy on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:57 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The best thing to happen to the Vietnamese (6+ / 0-)

    was for everyone to get the heck out!

    Not just the US:  the Japanese and the French as well.  

    Vietnam could become one of the more stabilizing forces in the region as Indonesia and the Philippines struggle with brutal religious wars and Burma suffers a military dictatorship... not to mention the mess in Thailand right now.

    If Iraq was to seek Vietnam's council right now what do you think Vietnam would say?

    The blood of memory runs down in rivers for those who see... rivulets for those who do not.

    by tecampbell on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:09:51 PM PDT

  •  no, they are just consolidating their base and (4+ / 0-)

    banking on the apathy of the media and their opposition. You are either with us or against us, remember? Do you want to win the War on Terror or not? It's a yes or no question even if it is a false dilemma, it makes an effective soundbite, and it can only be refuted through slow, painful education and reasoning, I have wracked my brain trying to come up with an equally good counter soundbite and have come up with nothing.

    Rewriting history is a lot easier than it sounds.

  •  Bush Compares Iraq to Vietnam (5+ / 0-)

    In October and November of last year.

  •  How the hell would he know ? /nt (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hhex65, Rogneid, dolphin777, inHI

    Let's get some Democracy for America

    by murphy on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:20:27 PM PDT

  •  he said theres still a debate (4+ / 0-)

    about how we got into the Vietnam war and how we got out...........well it sounds more like he's talking about himself.

    polling shows 52% of americans won't even CONSIDER voting for Hillary, should we bet the whole 2008 cycle hoping they aren't telling the truth.

    by nevadadem on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:31:02 PM PDT

  •  For NeoCons it isn't about the Vietnamese (2+ / 0-)

    Nor is it about reasonable solutions to problems.

    Its about winning.  To them, America "looked" like "a weak and helpless giant" by leaving Viet Nam.

    This Iraq situation is exacerbated by oil and the right wing Israeli lobbies.

    •  Not only the neocons of today (3+ / 0-)

      but our leaders way back in March of 1965. This summary in a memorandum from John T. McNaughton, assistant sec of defense for international security affairs to Sec of Defense McNamara, outlines US aims in Viet Nam:

      70% - To avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat (to our reputation as a guarantor), or in other words U.S. prestige.

      20% - To keep SVN (and the adjacent) territory from Chinese hands.

      10% - To permit people of SVN to enjoy a better, freer way of life.

      We can see how high the priority was for bringing "freedom and democracy" to the people of Viet Nam. That's probably about the same priority it has in Iraq today.

      March of 1965 was also the time that the first US combat troops arrived in Viet Nam.

      The above percentages are from The Pentagon Papers -  Abridged Edition

  •  The Pretzel Irony of Vietnam (7+ / 0-)

    From a draft-dodging drunk. W jumps the shark with such force, he's passed the orbital path of Pioneer 11.

    Anyone with any intellect must mock and repudiate this speech.

    Better get back to the web. The internet isn't going to surf itself.

    by RodSerling on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:38:57 PM PDT

  •  They bring it up to appeal to that part (3+ / 0-)

    of the Republican base that thinks that Vietnam was an honorable and winnable war. It is also a potential election year issue because the current Republican meme is that the withdrawal from Vietnam was conducted by the liberals who betrayed the American soldiers and the Vietnamese allies. The betrayal of our supporters in Vietnam was a conservative effort with the conservatives arguing against liberal immigration and a planned withdrawal.

    The truth? The withdrawal from Vietnam was started by the second most odious President in history, Nixon, and completed by the most ineffectual President in history, Ford. Both were Republicans. At least in Vietnam, the war had the pretense of having some honor, although that was shown to be a sham as well.

    We have rarely had a parallel in US history to the illegal invasion of Iraq, with no other purpose than to secure natural resources. The only parallel to Vietnam is that both are unwinnable.

    It is a shame that Bush, true to the neo-con and Republican ethos, did not have the moral or physical courage to put his life and future on the line to actually fight in Vietnam. Of course as an American soldier who went to Vietnam, I am happy he stayed home. God knows how many more US troops would have died if he had gone there and been given weapons and a command.

    "Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions." U.S.Grant

    by shigeru on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:56:39 PM PDT

    •  Will Dubya also speak of the numbers of deaths in (3+ / 0-)

      Viet Nam AFTER Nixon/Kissinger told the nation that an "honorable peace" was emminent?!

      Henry the "K" has on his hands the blood of those who died while the Kabuki dance, done to an accompaniment of official lies, continued!!

      Aloha .. .. ..

      •  History has shown that when a withdawal is (3+ / 0-)

        decided upon it should be done as orderly and as rapidly as possible. Prolonging a military withdrawal leads only to more deaths all around.

        The issue that will prevent any withdrawal while Bush is in office is that the damn fool cannot admit that he and his minions were wrong. Darker days in Iraqi-nam are coming and this group of half-wits and evil minded neo-cons don't have the balls or moral courage to do the right thing and withdraw in as orderly a manner as possible, as quickly as we can.

        We fucked up folks, and I say we, because most of the US public supported the war intially. It is time for all of us to own up to our errors and get out now.

        "Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions." U.S.Grant

        by shigeru on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:20:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree on one point. (3+ / 0-)

      The Mexican American War was surely the most dishonarable war in US history.

      Propogated by President Polk to ensure that there would remain a pro-slavery balance in the Senate, mixed with the expansionist trends of US settlers (Manifest Destiny), the Mexican American War was nothing more then territorial conquest papered over with documents signed under duress.

      We even occupied Mexico city until they signed on the bottom line.

      Why does that remind me of the extortion going on in Iraq about their oil laws?

      The blood of memory runs down in rivers for those who see... rivulets for those who do not.

      by tecampbell on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:10:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And according to a knowledgeable eminence (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tecampbell

        such as President/General Grant, the Mexican War was a direct cause of the Civil War and along with slavery, was the great sin for which the country paid with the Civil War.

        "Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions." U.S.Grant

        by shigeru on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 04:25:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ah, the Decider has decided that "we" should (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ari Mistral, NogodsnomastersMary

    still be in Vietnam!  "We" should have "fought them over there so we would not have to be fighting them over here."  How wise.  How prescient.  Maybe that is why God wanted him to be "Prescident!"

    Insights, insights, the Decider is full of insights.  Reminds me of an old joke.  "Be careful, Mr Prescident, don't step in the insights!"  All laugh.  :-)))

    A private gyn office offering full gyn services including abortion care to 18 weeks.

    by william f harrison on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:12:23 AM PDT

  •  Please do not use "Bush" as a tag (0+ / 0-)

    Tag guidelines instruct that when names are used both the first and last names should be included (with no titles), and in cases like the George Bushes - the middle initials are essential.  Read: Tagging: No Titles, Please.

    Please do not enter "bush" or "George Bush" (there is more than one), or "President Bush" as a tag. The correct tag for the current president is "George W. Bush."  His father is tagged as "George H. W. Bush"

    Many Kossacks bookmark tag links so it is easy to find new diaries on favorite or hot issues.  Some even add them to their blog rolls to make them easy to find regardless of what computer they are using.  That is an excellent reason to learn to use standard tags in your diaries.

    Your Daily Kos Tag Librarians thank you for your cooperation!

    ==============
    Tips on Creating Good Diary Tags
    Try to use tags from this List of the most used standard tags.
    Tag Search Tool
    TUs, please consider giving an hour a week helping with these Tag Clean Up Jobs.  We have the jobs all lined up to make it easy for you to do a little or a lot!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site