About Vietnam and Iraq,
I expect that if you asked George Bush how long
we should stay in Iraq he would say something like,
until the "job" is done,
being that the lesson from Vietnam was that we
should have stayed on until the job was done, according to
dear leader.
What I wander is - why is Bush comparing Iraq to Vietnam
now? The appropriate year for such a comparison would be
the year 2013.
We were in Vietnam for 10 years, deployed 500,000 troops and lost
53,000 of our troops and at least a million Vietnamese.
What the heck is Bush saying, that we should stay in Iraq until
2013, deploy additional hundreds of thousands of troops and
sustain 13 times the current casualties, and more of all that,
as much as it takes, not to even mentioned the financial losses.
Does Bush even know how long we were in Vietnam, does he even
understand what was sacrificed, does he think it was lost without
trying? Does he think that public opinion and protest caused the
failure? Can't he see that it was the failure that caused the public opinion and the protest both then and now?
Does he think that shaking the leaves of
trees causes the wind to blow?
When Bush says that we need to do more in Iraq than we did
in Vietnam - now is not the point at which we depart. First
we must get to the starting point - and that is in 2013.
My guess is that Bush himself doesn't even know how long we
were in Vietnam and what it cost us. I wish someone would
ask him.