Didn't watch the speech, but I believe that is what Sven, et al, were referencing in his post yesterday.

Our unbeloved idiot orator.

when was he talkin about Korea..Truman Truman Truman
good move...nobody remembers Truman got beat in '52 NH primary & knocked out of the race.Korea was a problem & IKE got us out..& got us out quick.But Folks today think Truman was great.

BUT VIETNAM?? NIXON??? LBJ???? WHERE WAS HE?????
WHY WHY WHY would Bush go there? You would think he would steer clear of the damn fool neo con Vietnam spin.

Virgil prides himself on never being surprised by the ignorance, stupidity, and depravity of this administration.

But this cuts it. Why in the world would Bush cite Graham Greene, The Quiet American, and the novel's titular character, Alden Pyle--widely recognized as the very symbol of bumbling, well-intentioned, violent American imperialism? And this in the middle of comparing our war against Iraq to our war against Vietnam?

For his next act, maybe he'll show some drawings of giant vacuum cleaners and claim they're Iran's weapons of mass distruction. (If you don't get that reference, read Greene's novel Our Man in Havana, or see the movie with Alec Guinness.)

The only explanation I can come up with is that Bush's speechwriters are having a good laugh over the ignorance and illiteracy of the American public, most of whom probably won't get the Greene references. And most of whom think our withdrawal from Vietnam had something to do with Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge reign of terror in Cambodia. Indirectly, maybe it did, though obviously not in the way Bush implies: the Khmer Rouge were defeated by united Vietnamese forces, who put an end to the killing fields.

As for Bush's manner, he always acts like the spoiled frat boy that he is. I don't think he has anything to do with the speeches except to show up and read them off the teleprompter, smirk, and then go get a respectful blowjob from the press.

I think it's clear Bush has abandoned any hope of winning back support outside the dead-ender demographic. He's said some crazy obnoxious things before, but this is way beyond the pale. He used to relegate this kind of bullshit to Cheney and Rummy, then play the good cop and ramble on about inclusiveness.

The intent is to shore up the Freeper base - the same minority of fanatical jerkoffs who managed to tank immigration reform -to prevent total collapse on the GOP side in Congress and run out the clock.

If there wasn't any doubt before, Bush is making is crystal clear now - the only thing American troops are fighting and dying to protect is his ego.

I never thought he'd go this far either. Are they this desperate as they make up this stuff on the go? If we were dumb enough to let W be Prez, maybe they figure, the sheeple will believe Vietnam was a noble cause worth repeating, but without ever pulling out this time. Anybody who questions them is just airing one America hater's opinion, after all.

Anybody who questions them is just airing one America hater's opinion, after all.

Yes, indeed. The revisionist history is really beside the point. This is designed primarily as a schoolyard taunt. It allows the wingnuts to sit back and laugh at all the mewling realty-based eggheads.

Because no one on the Democratic side will stand up to Bush's posturing and call him out directly and forcefully, it demonstrates to the authoritarian crowd that his critics are cowards at heart.

American military shall spread democracy
Anything else is Munich '38

The appeasers lost China,Korea,Cuba,Vietnam & Iran

The appeasers left freedom fighters in Hungry('56), Czechholovakia('68) & Afghanistan('80)to twist in the wind.

The appeasers negotiated with the enemey.. Nixon with Mao,Reagan with Gorbachev.

The appeasers ignore Israel.

The appeasers left Hussein in power..when the military could have took him out('91).

We are no longer appeasers..We stand for might & democracy.

There is a reason no American President,from Nixon to Clinton,has bought into the neo con argument.

It sounds good in campaign speeches...but it gets you mired in wars..like LBJ in Vietnam & Bush in Iraq.

the name of the Department of Defense to Department of Offense? 'cause that's the best Defense, right?

and besides, what's the point of having a tax-guzzling War Machine if we don't use it and use it constantly?

would he have made this speech to anyone except Vets? and shouldn't Vet groups be questioning Bush the most on his strategery?

Paul Begala gets it:

I mean, historians will parse what they're already saying is the bad history in the speech today. So, let me leave that to them. But look at the theatrics of it. He's saying, essentially, that 58,000 dead in Vietnam weren't quite enough, that maybe we should have twice as big a tragic memorial on the Mall.

And who's saying it? A man who chose not to serve, took steps, used family friends to get out of serving in Vietnam, didn't even show up for his own Guard duty, so that better, braver men could fight that war. He stood before those better, braver men today a coward in the company of heroes.

And then he turns, as a politician, and attacks Vietnam heroes like John McCain, John Kerry, Max Cleland.

So, if -- if -- I can't imagine who is advising the president -- maybe it's Dick Cheney, who has a similar war record -- who is advising him to invoke Vietnam, when he has so -- so lacking in any moral standing to do so.

I suppose we're all expected to change our minds now

No, they don't expect us to at all. They really don't care.

The only thing they care about is keeping the troglodytes in line long enough to run out the clock, which will allow them to tag the inevitable withdrawal on Democrats.

It's difficult for a sane person to get his or her mind around the fact that our president is that cynical, that... evil.

But he really is.

“Darmok and Jalad at Tenagra.” I wish I'd thought of that.

JFK's stirring inaugural speech was a clarion call for the nascent neo conservative movement.

"We shall pay any price,bear any burden,meet any hardship,support any friend,oppose any foe in order to assure the survival & success of liberty."

However,the fiasco @ the Bay of Pigs,was a bitter pill for the neo cons to swallow.In their minds JFK double crossed them when he did not send in American air support for the anti-Castro Cuban freedom fighters & left them to be mowed down or captured by the communist dictator.

The Bay of Pigs was a fiasco of JFK's own making..should have never gone in..& the result was RFK would be the point person on everything.

There is no way to know how JFK would have dealt with Vietnam but this is the conclusion of the speech he was to give in Dallas.

"We in this country,in this generation,are...by destiny rather than choice...the watchmen on the walls of world freedom.We ask,therefore,that we may be worthy of our power & responsibilty...that we may exercise our strength with wisdom & restraint...& that we may achieve in our time & for all time the ancient vision of peace on earth,good will toward men."

Restraint is not a tenet of the neo cons.

Middle East:"Ike offered prescient words:The United States had no business transformorming itself into "an occupying power in a seething Arab world"and if it ever did so,"I'm sure we would regret it."

Michael Korda
Atl Journal-Constitution
8/23/07

But of course Republican pundits spun that so fast their fingers were burning. They said Cheney's statement was true before---- (guess what?) Yeah, of course 9-11. The day outsiders attacked us, therefore giving fuel to those inside our borders who also had designs on destroying our constitutional rights.