The good thing is, Bush knows that you shouldn't leave an invaded country because things might be just as worser as the last time the US invaded a country and faced mass slaughter and withdrawal and mass slaughterness.
At least that's what I get from it......... I think.
Lol, just posted on this a few minutes ago and yours sounds very much like mine. I love his references to Cambodia as if, whether we were involved or not, he needed those scary words like "khmer rouge" and "killing fields". You're right, he does not have a clue.
had he said that every military-age member of his, Chenron's, his cabinet, administration and every Repug member of Congress' extended family were volunteering and he called on all members of the College/Young repuglican organisations to go fight the "good fight" I might have taken him seriously
The last George W. Bush quote about recent asian history you ever need to read
My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. (Applause.) It begins here because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that alliance has come an era of peace in the Pacific. And in that peace, the world has witnessed the broad advance of prosperity and democracy throughout East Asia.
I suppose it's not necessary to point out that this speech (to the Diet, fachrissakes) was not made in September of 2095.
My son, 24, a history major, took umbrage when I heard "killing fields" and started yelling at the TV. I had to explain that Bush was talking about Viet Nam but to people my age "killing fields" means Pol Pot and Cambodia and that Bush was trying to include that in his speech, like it had any relevance. Korean history he's way up on and it was interesting (read fun) to hear him yelling at the TV.
As has been pointed out, when you don't provide a proper public education this type of rhetorical presentation has a particular effect on those whose grasp of history is, shall we say, slippery at best. It's past of a larger picture.
BTW- Did he really say that shit?!
Gilley lives.
Mrs Robinson,
...and I steal from him 
http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2...z-
thereses.html
uuummmm
I think in this part
The U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam had nothing to do with the rise of Pol Pot in Vietnam, saying so is crazy talk.in the second vietnam... I think you meant cambodia...
julia, I believe that Bush was talking about a century and a half since Commodore Perry opened up Japan. Though Perry's errand succeeded mainly because of the number of guns on his ships, and we did have that little rough spot in the Japanese-American alliance from 1941-45.
It seems to all be just a game of mix and match historical Clue. It was George W. Bush with the Democracy in Iraq. It was Saddam Hussein with the terrorist supporting WMDs in the World Trade Center. It was the liberals in the USA with the stab in the back.
Even with the success of swiftboating John Kerry, reigniting the debate of Vietnam is a really bad idea for the people who actually lived through it. The older people are nearly the only ones that are putting up Bush's mighty quarter of support, and this talk of could've won had we stayed in Vietnam is hard to sell even in the corporate press. I've always maintained that Bush's actual native support is around 15-20 percent. They will stay with Bush no matter what. Let's see if he gets into very historic territory here. And whether Democrats will still cower before Mr. 15 percent.
the answer is clearly TimeCube...
makes more sense than a bush history lesson, anyways...the whole thing just sounds like a warm-up for the "why it's vital to expand the war to Iran" speeches to come, God help us...
update: thanks to drifty i link to steve discussing 'nam.
and for gods sake dont link to timecube... 
As we all know:
"What experience and history teach is this - that nations and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted upon any lessons they might have drawn from it." - Hegel
One should also note that we were not trying to induce divisions in Germany and Japan during their occupation. To the contrary, we allowed the Japanese Emperor to stay to facilitate the transfer of power to American occupation forces.
The main problem is that the "fighting wingnuts" prattle on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, about how "we" didn't lose in Vietnam.
Reminds me of Kevin Kline in "A Fish Called Wanda": "We didn't lose!! It was a TIE!"
First of all, most (read all) of these shitbags never set foot in Vietnam, but find themselves unable to read history books, written by people who were there, on the ground, fighting.
David Hackworth comes to mind.
Poor Hack's spinning in his grave right now, with the treatment the troops are getting.
And bush goes in front of the VFW to tell them about wars they fought in. What a @#!%$#*~ sack of shit.
Has anyone ever collected that cash reward for someone proving Bush flew with his Guard unit anytime in those last 12 months?
He's a total chicken-shit coward. Even afraid of horses, let alone unable to hire speech-writers who understand history.
I remain constantly amazed that 1 out of 4 people in this country is so fucking blind they can't tell fact from fiction.
non related comment, my friend of previous fantastic site BuyBlue.org has a pretty good post over on kos, that I think you guys and gals would have good input on...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/20...8/22/05050/
8698
In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution.
Let's consider the lesson of the Khmer Rouge for a minute. It was a fringe movement until the US started bombing Cambodia, and its popularity skyrocketed. Just going to prove that if you bomb someone's home and family, you have made an enemy for life.
Then the Khmer Rouge lost power after being invaded by none other than Vietnam. So, if Iraq is truly like Vietnam, the next steps will be:
- the US bombs Iran
- Iran begins a civil war until the current government is replaced by the ultra hard-liners
- Iran's new government kills a couple of million of its citizens
- the killing stops after an al-Sadr led Iraq invades Iran and sets up a puppet government
OK, the scary thing is that none of those steps look all that improbable
The ONLY reason we don't don't have the casualty counts of troops and civilians in Iraq as we did in Vietnam is because we don't have a military draft now and therefore don't have an unending source of cannon fodder. It's not that Bush doesn't want it be a full-scale Vietnam-type war. I am sure he is seriously disappointed, but he just can't get enough volunteers to murder and be murdered over there in a no-win war against a country who never threatened us, just like Vietnam.
Skipping a step or two here;
With the dems caving right and left, Pelosi and Reid are saying to them:
"You people are so desperate to have nominal democratic control of both houses, that WE can publicly help cover george bush's ass for the next 15 months, giving him time to get out of town (and to dump the shitmire in our laps) and you won't do a thing about it."
Memo to Nan-Nan:
"Wanna bet your political career on that?"
Look, everyone except the 28%ers knows that Tipsy McStagger is pulling shit out of his ass to justify his fuckup in Iraq.
I want to see a reporter call him on it, considering the stupid bastard (Bush) said in 2004 that such Vietnam-Iraq comparisions hurt the troops and enbolden the terrorists (Yeah, I know: it won't happen).
'Scusa...that is, Pelosi and Reid are saying to US:
"Don't like our republican-lite shit? Lump it or leave it."
I'm about ready to leave it.
Ceabaird; you nailed it. If I was in that crowd of VFW'r's, and he started prattling about Vietnam, I'd stand up and yell:
"And did you figure all this out, while you were in that TANG champagne squadron?"
UMMM the NVA finaly stopped Pol Pot. there would have been no killing feilds had we withdrawn earilyer and allowed the vietcong to secure the region.
in fact there is very strong evidance that we created Pol Pot....
wengler: Let's see if he gets into very historic territory here. And whether Democrats will still cower before Mr. 15 percent.
yes they will
another edition of simple answers to simple questions
Tanbark - several months ago weren't you saying that the Dems should not block funds for the war because the ReThugs would scream "stab in the back" and the Dems would get blamed for whatever hell followed in Iraq?
That's exactly what I was saying, and I still don't want them to force troop withdrawals BY THEMSELVES, even if they can. If they do that, it will be the kiss of death. It will mean 20-25 percentage points for the GOP, in the election next year. They will be so successful at blaming what is going to follow troop withdrawals, no matter WHO triggers them, that they could sweep both houses and the presidency, again.
What I want, and what we NEED, is something approaching the level of outrage that we have on here, everytime bush or one of the warbots, starts spouting off this despicable bullshit.
That's what HAS to happen.
And, not even the candidates who have a DUTY to call the bastards out, and a vested interest in doing it, are going after them. Right now, the big republican talking point is "It's the
Iraqi Government's fault."
And the dems are climbing on board that shitwagon. It's sickening. They don't have to cut the funding for the troops (The ONLY direct handle they have, on forcing withdrawals) but when the warpimps start excusing themselves by saying that it's Maliki's fault, there should be steam coming out of democratic ears. Instead, they're letting this crap become conventional wisdom, and by doing it, it increases the chances that THEY will inherit the clusterfuck. It's just insane.
Right now, here, it's a war of words, and the democrats aren't even trying to win it.
If you haven't noticed, the repubs are daring the democrats to do anything, and as long as bush can hold the line around 30%, and as long as the MSM, helped by the democrats refusal to start cranking up a congressional firestorm, keeps letting him get away with this shit, the repubs won't be shit-their-pants scared enough to help the dems rack ass and do something meaningful.
What's pissing me off, is that Pelosi and Reid, etc., keep rolling over like toy poodles, on issues like FISA.
Every defeat they can hand him, increases his lameduck status, but they seem to have decided to let him string this out.
Gayvet, whether you like it or not, it IS a game of chicken, but the dems are chickening out so early, and so badly, that it's like they're shaving points.
Bush's speech has opened a Pandora's Box: a dialogue on the realities of US military intervention and covert operations since the end of World War II
it can't go well for the bipartisan consensus in support of it, as neither the Democrats in the House nor Bush can engage in it sincerely, because it would involve a radical change in US foreign and domestic policy, to the detriment of those who benefit from it
indeed, their power is revealed by the fact that, the Congress, run by the Democrats, now has an approval rate of 18%, about 11% lower than the President, yet they continue to chart the same disasterous course
Kissinger once said something to the effect that we can't let the Chileans do something stupid like democratically elect a socialist government
We can update his remark to the present by saying, neither the Democratic nor Republican parties will give the American electorate the opportunity to do something stupid like a real vote against interventionist US foreign policy
Richard, I think you're on top of it.
The dems are in this, up to THEIR fat little bank accounts and THEIR congressional perks, and to the level of sweetheart tax cuts for the wealthy.
I think that one of the reasons that they're starting to protect bush, is that THEY are about as scared as bush and the repubs, at what they know is coming when troops start leaving in meaningful numbers. EVERYthing is going to be on the table.
Huge increases in the PPB for oil, with attendant pump-price revenge (no small consideration, for americans) from the voters.
The NYSE has been twitching around like a blowfly on a hot turd. Think what it will look like when the Brits leave, and bush has to send troops into Basra to take back the city and those huge fields, from the militias.
So far, the Kurds are insisting on holding that constitutionally mandated referendum for control of Kirkuk, with the clear implication of them taking over some 600 HIGH producing oil wells, to give them instant "rich nation" status.
The Turks have already said they won't stand for it. Are they bluffing?
This misery is going to be a real test of conscience for everyone in congress. Are they willing to keep pouring lives and money down the tube, to protect bush and the GOP's asses, and ALSO, to preserve the corporate status-quo? Or will they insist on the truth, and on the reckoning that will come with it, for the people who have done this to us?
Ladies and gents, place your bets.
Well, I know which way I'm placing my bet, Tanbark. As you yourself put it, the Elite want this war & the Dem "leadership" are all part 'n' parcel of the Elite. They are not going to go against their own kind. The rest of us can just go to hell as far as they're concerned. After all, what else are we going to do? Vote for a "worse" Republican?
How sickening is it going to be to watch Bush skip merrily off into the sunset, a delightedly gloating smirk plastered all over his sociopath's face, as his loyal servants, the Democrats, wait patiently in the wings to cop the blame for everything he's done? I can't wait to see Hillary gape like a fucking goldfish when the media begins to report on the carnage in Iraq as being carnage in Iraq.
Hey you guys, wake up and hear the dog-whistle! Didn't you hear the speech?
If we "win" the War On Iraq, we will also, retroactively, win the War in Vietnam! It's a two-fer!
How the hell can you resist a bargain like that? Whadayagot to lose?
More importantly, the winning will bring about the final victory in the most important war of all! Yup, we'll show those dirty fuc-in' hippies once and for all. (And maybe, all the neo-cons think, my chicken hawkery in the sixties will stop haunting me)
Whadayou libs got against Bush, Cheney and the rest winning their self-respect back?
I remain constantly amazed that 1 out of 4 people in this country is so fucking blind they can't tell fact from fiction.
Jesse Wendel
Oh, Jesse, that doesn't surprise me, I'm a little weak on that myself.
What amazes me is that the rest of us remain hostage to them, and willing to give up both our rights and our children to their hullucinations.
I suggest a possible motive for Democratic passivity, which does not exclude any of the others already suggested:
The donkeys suspect, or even KNOW, a recession, even a depression, is coming--and they want the elephants to stay in power to take the lion's share of the blame when it happens.
After all, that's what ended the last period of GOP dominion.
Opinions?
Ivory Bill; you might be as right as a snake, as an old friend of mine used to say. :o)
Some things that, at this point, I think are givens:
Best-case scenario for Iraq; just like with Vietnam, the pressure from a disillusioned and pissed-off public forces bush and the dems to jointly pull the troops. ALL the troops.
The Iraqis look around; see it's now THEIR part of the world again, and decide that making some huge compromises with each other beats 1970's Lebanon-on-meth, all to hell and gone. Of course, Iran and the new Shiastan-with-70%-of-Iraq's-reserves, are exchanging dickrubs and enjoying their new power, courtesy of george bush. The Kurds will have SOME degree of control over Kirkuk, but hopefully, are smart enough to NOT fuck with their Turkmen population. In fact, they should buy EVERY Turkman of legal driving age a new BMW, to welcome them as first-class citizens, and keep them happy, happy, happy.
Worst-case: What we've all been talking about; and what is PROBABLY going to happen; the place turns into the ethnic blood-olympics. The Saudis support the Sunnis; the Iranians support Al Hakim and/or Sadr, and maybe the rest of the Shia.
Just on general principles, oil goes to $100 a barrel, and Jesus Christ, THIS list is too long to think about, and it's effects on us are going to be unpredictable and unspinnable.
So maybe Ivory Bill's right. Could the dems be saying to the GOP:
"You guys really need to stay in power for a while yet, in order to accomplish the mission."
I mean, it's not too outrageous to think that they ARE looking at what's coming down the pike, and have decided to shave some points.
It's not fixable. No way to salvage anything for anyone to point to and say: "Lookit how well we're doing!"
There's nothing coming out of the whole shittaree, except obscene profits for some of bush's bestest corporate buds; an exponential increase in the number of fanatics who want a piece of us; and plenty more blood and bullshit.
Oh; the Mullahs in Iran are looking good, too, Bill.
"I can't wait to see Hillary gape like a fucking goldfish..."
You got it, John D. :o)
I read two days ago, where 8 percent of FauxNews' current reporting is about Iraq. (18 percent for the whole MSM)
Jiminy Cricket, if some dem wins the preznintzy, do you think those numbers might "rebound"?
That "Try Again" link from Steve's May 2006 writing shook me....
Steve Gilliard was a badass..
Damn, I miss him.
I love you guys.
-David
Everyone's said anything I had to say at this point, except that the Dem's are IN ON IT all the way, they are a PART of the illegal arms deals, the kickbacks from the weapons makers, the backing of this group here with weapons sales, and that group there with more of the same.
We are a country of arms merchants anymore, nothing else. Our politicians top to bottom are whores to the weapons making and sales, and that's that.
There IS no way out of this clusterphuck, that's gonna be good for anyone except the rich.
Only Russia And China now can end this mercifully . . . I just don't believe Russia will let us DO Iran . . . and get away with it clean . . . and WE THE USA will STILL hit the shitz economically anyways it goes, whether we do Iran or not.
I'm COUNTING on Russia to save us from ourselves . . . I'm REALLY counting on it. But then, I'm deep into Irony!!
Worst case?
Cheney fucks up and does Iran.
And who KNOWS what the Russians or Chinese will do once we do Iran.
At that point, the stakes are species ending critical. And completely unpredictable.
But It'll the cusp of what could be a cold, cold radioactive winter at some point . . . and many a Fundie are gonna be SO dissappointed to find Rapture And Rising were all a lie . . . oh well, it solves the global warming issue.
This is so insane I can't even read it and wonder, how'd the fuck this shit happen in MY lifetime!
N then I remember, hell, we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki . . . I've always thought that was a bad omen . . .
As always, great posting above, thanks to all.
John Warner's got a foot back on the gangplank. He's calling for bush to make SOME withdrawals by the end of this year, to show the Iraqis that we're serious about leaving.
Since the last poll I saw showed that at least 70 percent of Iraqis want us gone,
I think they would support the drawdown. :o)
Of course, once it starts, it's gonna be like a snowball, and there won't be an option for sending them back in, without a firestorm breaking on bush's head.
Finally.
Thanks, David, we love you too. :o)
And, my periodic glums notwithstanding, we are GOING to kick some serious ass 15 months from now. :o)
If not sooner, WITH republican help, as they decide that george bush and his petroleum posse are more valuable to them as sacrificial goats for the 2008 election barbecue, than as exiting statesmen. :o)
lots of REALLY good comments here
The FISA cave-in was the last straw for me, after that I'm through with the Dems.
The ReThugs and Dems are two sides of the same coin: the Party of War
want some interesting insight, go to
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com
we're screwed
Well, all I can say is: If you guys don't want to win the VietNam war, the hell with you. We are this close to victory! Why give up now?
There's a thought, Mooser!
I can see the clenched fists being shaken at the Repubican National convention in Minneapolis next year, as they chant:
"On to Saigon!!!"
Commenting by HaloScan
