Saying we should stay? Saying we should have stayed in Nam and "won?"
Don't you just love how they are trying to frame this argument in terms of "surrender" and "defeat" if we leave. Why not declare victory instead? We removed Saddam, we found no WMD (but at least contained the threat), we beat their military, and now we are engaged in a wholly unjustified occupation compounded by a religious civil war. Who are we surrendering to?
This is not war, this is occupation, and terms like retreat and surrender do not apply. To even use those terms is to engage in prevarication.
Bush is right. This is Vietnam. I have no idea who on his staff told him it would be a good idea to compare the two, but now that the cat is out of the bag it sure isn't going back in. And unless I'm wrong, most Americans don't think we could have won Vietnam even if we had used Nukes (which would have probably started a world-wide nuclear exchange).
Which is perhaps what Bush is angling for. Scary times...
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/that-vietnam-analogy-reactions/#comment-11284
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment