The Bobcat Nation

"Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is. I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

- Texas Governor George Dubya Bush, discussing the war in Kosovo, during Bill Clinton's term in office. -- 6/5/99.

Are you implying that politicians flip-flop????

I'm crushed!

In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson sought to rally Americans behind the Vietnam War two months after a major Viet Cong offensive on the Vietnamese Tet holiday, a violent outburst that moved public opinion against the war. There are some striking rhetorical similarities between that speech, which Johnson delivered from the Oval Office, and Bush's speech Tuesday night at Fort Bragg.

-- Johnson said: "Their attack -- during the Tet holidays -- failed to achieve its principal objectives.''

Bush, talking about the insurgents in Iraq, said their "savage acts of violence ... have not brought the terrorists any closer to achieving their strategic objectives.''

-- Johnson said the American presence "has always rested on this basic belief: The main burden of preserving their freedom must be carried out by them -- by the South Vietnamese themselves.''

Bush said: "The best way to complete the mission is to help Iraqis build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.''

-- Johnson told the American people: "The heart of our involvement in South Vietnam ... has always been America's own security.''

Bush said: "Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it. And it is vital to the future security of our country.''

These are from the SFChronicle...Marc Sandalow, lest someone accuse me of plagarizing.

BUSH ON THE WAR
A sampling of President Bush's comments in the past five months on the war in Iraq:

Feb. 2, State of the Union

"We are in Iraq to achieve a result: a country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors and able to defend itself.''

March 16, press conference

"It's amazing how much progress has been made, thanks in large part to the courage of the Iraqi people. And when I talk to people, most understand we need to complete the mission. And completing the mission means making sure the Iraqis can defend themselves.''

April 28, press conference

"There are still some in Iraq who aren't happy with democracy. They want to go back to the old days of tyranny and darkness, torture chambers and mass graves. In order to defeat the terrorists, in order to defeat their ideology of hate, in the long run, we must spread freedom and hope.''

May 31, press conference

"So I'm pleased with the progress. I am pleased that in less than a year's time, there's a democratically elected government in Iraq; there are thousands of Iraqi soldiers trained and better equipped to fight for their own country; that our strategy is very clear in that we will work to get them ready to fight, and when they're ready, we'll come home.''

June 24, appearance with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari:

"They (insurgents) figure if they can shake our will and affect public opinion, then politicians will give up on the mission. I'm not giving up on the mission."

Tuesday, address to nation:

"Our mission in Iraq is clear. We're hunting down the terrorists. We're helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror.''

MAKE THE PIE HIGHER
by George W. Bush

I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mental losses.

Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?

They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream.

Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!

Comparing the Iraq War to the Vietnam War is idiotic. They are completely different, and should not be compared. Next you are going to start rambling that the Iraq War is the new Vietnam… Political enemies of the current administration are trying their hardest to make everyone think that the Iraq War is the same as the Vietnam War- Propaganda…

iaafan wrote:These are from the SFChronicle...Marc Sandalow, lest someone accuse me of plagarizing.

BUSH ON THE WAR
A sampling of President Bush's comments in the past five months on the war in Iraq:

Feb. 2, State of the Union

"We are in Iraq to achieve a result: a country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors and able to defend itself.''

March 16, press conference

"It's amazing how much progress has been made, thanks in large part to the courage of the Iraqi people. And when I talk to people, most understand we need to complete the mission. And completing the mission means making sure the Iraqis can defend themselves.''

April 28, press conference

"There are still some in Iraq who aren't happy with democracy. They want to go back to the old days of tyranny and darkness, torture chambers and mass graves. In order to defeat the terrorists, in order to defeat their ideology of hate, in the long run, we must spread freedom and hope.''

May 31, press conference

"So I'm pleased with the progress. I am pleased that in less than a year's time, there's a democratically elected government in Iraq; there are thousands of Iraqi soldiers trained and better equipped to fight for their own country; that our strategy is very clear in that we will work to get them ready to fight, and when they're ready, we'll come home.''

June 24, appearance with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari:

"They (insurgents) figure if they can shake our will and affect public opinion, then politicians will give up on the mission. I'm not giving up on the mission."

Tuesday, address to nation:

"Our mission in Iraq is clear. We're hunting down the terrorists. We're helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror.''

Interesting that you accuse President Bush of being like President Johnson, especially when one considers how admired President Johnson is by some on the Left.

They aren't my comparisons. I think I mentioned something to that effect.

And I wouldn't necessarily call what the writer did as making comparisons. His intention is more about the people of this country not being able to get over Vietnam.

However comparisons between any war and Vietnam is inevitable. I don't think it's idiotic to compare the two wars at all. Rather a good exercise.

I'm also not sure that many on the left speak favorably about Johnson's involvement in Vietnam ... or Kennedy's, for that matter. They do tend to speak well about other parts of their Presidencies.

As to comparing the two wars, I take a lot of comfort in knowing that this war has cost us many, many fewer lives than Vietnam, so they aren't even comparable in that context.

As to the motivations behind the war (stopping creeping communism vs. stopping creeping terrorism(?)) and criticisms at home about the lack of an exit strategy, there are some similarities. I don't think people should necessarily use those as a club to say "See, this is just like Vietnam!" as though bringing up Vietnam attaches a negative stigma to the Iraq war, but we definitely should look to our history and learn from it. To the extent that there are similarities, we should look to Vietnam to glean ideas about possible problems or opportunities.

I'm no Johnson fan and I'm not a democrat. I'm conservative in many ways. It isn't because GW is a right winger/republican that I don't like him. I wish I did like him. I wish he'd do something to make himself likeable.

But there are many things are dissimalar between Iraq and Vietnam. Such as No. Vietnam was supported by the Communists, who were about 1.5 billion strong at time and had a formidable nuclear arsenal at their disposal. Iraq had WMDs and terrorists, didn't they?

One big differance between the war on terror and the Vietnam War.

AFTER we left Vietnam and Cambodia-thousands of innocent people killed by a ruthless government.

BEFORE we entered Irag and Afganistan-thousands of innocent people killed by a ruthless government.

If we are in there we better finish is or else History will definately repeat itself

Ponycat wrote:One big differance between the war on terror and the Vietnam War.

AFTER we left Vietnam and Cambodia-thousands of innocent people killed by a ruthless government.

BEFORE we entered Irag and Afganistan-thousands of innocent people killed by a ruthless government.

If we are in there we better finish is or else History will definately repeat itself

Excellent point.

That is an excellent point. I doubt that 'finishing' ever becomes an option. Our version of finishing will be establishing a base(s) in Iraq to ensure no major uprisings occur, because if we leave the Iraqis won't be able to sustain a democratic gov't for very long, then the heads will roll...literally. I doubt that America will be up for establishing a base, so............

Did I read somewhere that Karzai wants a US base in Afganistan?

I don't know if that's a rhetorical question, but, yes you did read that somewhere. What ever happened to Afghanistan anyway?

I kind of assume that we will have a permanent base in Iraq as well, but I have absolutely nothing to back that up. It is just an assumption that I had.

iaafan wrote:I don't know if that's a rhetorical question, but, yes you did read that somewhere. What ever happened to Afghanistan anyway?

There aren't as many military personnel being killed by insurgents, and therefore doesn't make as good a story for Reuters or the NY Times.

Case in point, Afghanistan again makes the news, now that the Taliban have claimed to have shot down one of our MH-47s, killing all 17 aboard.

No news is good news. As they say, so things must've been going well or not all in Afghany.

The only news out of Montana was Free Men and Unabomber and fires and Mountain Men kidnappers, etc for some time. I mean, yeah, I get your point kind of. The only postive news has been Schweitzer getting elected, but that is because he is a liberal Gov in what the rest of the country thinks is a very conservative place, which it isn't in comparison to our neighbor states. But, of course, he only got elected because Judy was so bad. And Judy was so bad because she wasn't Marc Racicot, who would've been bad, too, if he had been Judy.

iaafan wrote:The only news out of Montana was Free Men and Unabomber and fires and Mountain Men kidnappers, etc for some time. I mean, yeah, I get your point kind of. The only postive news has been Schweitzer getting elected, but that is because he is a liberal Gov in what the rest of the country thinks is a very conservative place, which it isn't in comparison to our neighbor states. But, of course, he only got elected because Judy was so bad. And Judy was so bad because she wasn't Marc Racicot, who would've been bad, too, if he had been Judy.

Uh, okay...