Personally, I think Bush walked into the admission because he didn’t know the historiacal significance of the Tet offensive, and just thought Stephanopoulos was talking about combat in general. IMNSHO, Iraq turned into Vietnam the moment we went in without any real plans to get out.
Stephanopoulos asked whether the president agreed with the opinion of columnist Tom Friedman, who wrote in The New York Times today that the situation in Iraq may be equivalent to the Tet offensive in Vietnam almost 40 years ago.
“He could be right,” the president said, before adding, “There’s certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we’re heading into an election.”
“George, my gut tells me that they have all along been trying to inflict enough damage that we’d leave,” Bush said. “And the leaders of al Qaeda have made that very clear. Look, here’s how I view it. First of all, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. They are dangerous. They are lethal. They are trying to not only kill American troops, but they’re trying to foment sectarian violence.”
The problem is that al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq before we created the environment to welcome them.
On a related note, here’s an excellent analysis by Kieth Olbermann at MSNBC.com on the recent “anti-terror” legislation signed into law by Bush suspending habeas Corpus for people he doesn’t like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RhmCKKt8h4.
The really sad part is that we still have two years of this before we can even begin the clean-up.
From the crowd that still thinks that Tet was a major victory for the Viet Cong. {yawn}
That implies that it can be cleaned up. You are correct though although for me it is more scary than sad. Two-years is a lot of time to make it a lot worse than it already is — and I am not limiting my fear to Iraq.
Like it or not al Qaeda, Sunni and Shite terrrorists have made it clear who they want to win the election next month. I wonder why? Too bad they are making thier preferences known by blowing the arms and legs off of innocent civilians, and killing our soldiers who are helping establish the elected government.
I can’t wait to see this secret plan of the Democrats to get out of this mess.
1,
Who said Tet was a military victory? It was, however, a major image coup for the Viet Cong. Last time I checked, we wound up leaving that country in chaos.
Do you have anything to add to the discussion? I’d love to hear how you think Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. I’d also like to hear you opinion on what Olbermann said, and I mean it.
Re #3… oh yeah, let’s just “Stay the course”… it is working soooo well.
Bush’s remaining base: the gullible and the ignorant. The gullible that continue to believe the blatant lies that have been fed to them since the start of this conflict, and the ignorant because given the ample evidence to the contrary, they still believe in what the Bush administration (and it’s spokespeople) are telling them.
By not questioning and challenging the Bush administration in the way that it has conducted this war, you might as well put a big sticker on your forehead saying “I’m Gullible and Ignorant”
5,
You forget the disingenuous.
Tet was a military failure through and through. However it was a propaganda coup that is even acknowledged by every learned person but Frank. The real grass roots opposition to the war started after Tet. Aided and abetted by complete Hollywood zeros like Jane (the asshole) Fonda.
The sad part is that to me at least there isn’t a valid comparison to make between Tet and Iraq. Tet was a large mostly military offensive (with terrorist attacks as well) that proved no army can stand toe to toe with the US Army. Whats going on now is just an escalation of the same terrorist attacks that have been going on for years now.
If we follow the same course as we have over the last two-three years we will loose. Not in the field, but in the minds of the people of Iraq.
Either we walk away – or we send in enough force to blanket the country and whack the real hard cases. I cannot believe you neocons who comment on this Blog really believe the war is being fought well.
Using Tet as a comparison just shows that this supposed smart president is a complete and utter moron and failure.
You know come to think about it I can’t think of one neocon in the administration or on even on this Blog who has ever served. Any of you stay the course neocons have any kids or relatives in this fight? Is it that bullies and cowards stick together?
If you disagree with Govt. you could be aiding the enemy, at least in the eyes of Neocons, and this is a dangerous development. Like him or not, Olberman is one of the few Jouranalists with balls these days. I think most agree that our reasons for going into Iraq were flawed at best, and its a hard pill to swallow, but WE WERE WRONG. To continue down the wrong path is asinine. Those who dont believe, forget about it, your brain dead. No amount of reasoning will change your mind.
3. You need to get off the Partisan crap. The Republicans are in meltdown right now. I dont care for the Dems either, but your basically saying the Terrorists are influencing our politics. The Republicans and their stupidity are the only thing influencing my politics.
You claim that the “problem” is that al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq before we created an environment to “welcome them”.
Perhaps this was by design? Keep the fight off of American soil.
This country, as shown by the many posts above, appears to be losing its backbone… a bunch of timid cowards who want to put their tail between their legs, run away and hide. Yet, they continue to want to enjoy the lifestyle and luxuries of living and thriving in an environment provided to us because of our superpower status.
Democrats are great at talking about the problem, saying the sky is falling… yet on every news show, not a single one can discuss an alternative plan. Reminds me of my college professors, book smart, not street smart.
A comparison is not necessary to see that the Iraq War was wrong. It was SO wrong. What Bush hadn’t counted on was that he has actually made the Middle East STRONGER. He has made the world MORE DANGEROUS. He has made “America” an insult around the world. That man has destroyed what is good on so many levels. His legacy is DISGRACE in the eyes of humanity. God has a special place for him.
Smartalix in what way was the Middle East stable before the Iraq War of 2003? Saddam Hussein did everything he could to ensure that it was not, evidence can be seen when he invaded two of the neighboring countries, funded terrorism throughout the region, and ran a regime more repressive then Hitler’s. As far as all the “stay the course” arguments, I agree that the saying is rather vague, but what if he said America will stay the course until the Iraqi security forces are able to defend their nation against internal/external threats. As soon as that happens, and I predict it will occur within the next 1-3 years, America can start to withdraw large amounts of troops from the region. Instead of these useless comparisons, and anti-Bush rhetoric, I challenge the people of this forum to express ideas on how best to secure the future of the Iraqi state.
There are lots of alternative plans. The problem is that Bush currently has no strategy of his own to win, other than stay the course ’til it’s done, whatever the flip that means. There’s a goal (win), but no workable strategy. And Bush is stubborn enough that changing his approach admits weakness, something he is genetically unable to do.
Apparently the course we’re staying on involves the next president (no way it’s a Repub, is there?) creating a thoughtful, slogan-free strategy that has some chance of succeeding, whatever it may be, and getting our butts outa there.
His “my way or the highway” diplomacy, his “with us or against us” divisivness, and his amazing reluctance to fire that Rumsfeld idiot are the problems. Change one or two of those in ’02 and we’re having arguments about domestic policy instead of Iraq as we approach the ’06 elections.
What’s the opposite of cut-n-run? Stay-n-die? Crouch-n-burn?
Non-conservatives don’t want to see us just leave Iraq, but rather we want to see some PROGRESS! When do we see some real, not imaginary PR bullsh!t, progress? What’s the power grid like in Baghdad, 3-4 hours worth each day?
Stay the course, yeah, that’s working. Not.
There is no future to the Iraqi state, and they know it. The situation now is tribal, with even sub-factions increasing weekly. The best you could hope for is partitioning the country into three self governing states. Does everyone remember how wonderful partitioning lands go? India/Pakistan, Palestine, etc.
Last time I checked rctaylor Iraq was governed by one governing body that has a federalist system setup to accommodate those tribal/ethnic differences.
SmartAlix –
I didn’t say “Iraq is nothing like Vietnam”. I’m simply pointing out that when Bush says the current situation there “is similar to Tet”, the meaning is very different than what many would like to believe.
Here is the relevant quote:
“There’s certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we’re heading into an election.”
While (thanks to the gullibility of Cronkite et al) Tet was a public relations victory for the Communist side, it was ultimately a disaster for the Viet Cong. Their role in the conflict was much reduced after that point, forcing the North Vietnamese forces to take a much more direct role.
And in spite of the gradual withdrawal of troops under Nixon, and their total withdrawal in 1973, the North was not able to conquer the south (in violation of the peace treaties they had signed) until the total cutoff of all aid to South Vietnam by President Ford in 1974.
So saying “the situation in Iraq right now resembles Tet” is not the same as “I concede!! The Democrats were right all along! Quagmire!!”. Anyone who thinks that is ignorant of history.
“I predict it will occur within the next 1-3 years, America can start to withdraw large amounts of troops from the region. ”
Dont you know we are building permanent bases in Iraq? Bush has no intention of leaving.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Permanent_U.S._bases_in_Iraq
Just like in VIetnam and the Tet offensive, the media is determined to portray victories as failures. The President is saying he thinks Al Qaeda is engaging in a major offensive prior to the election to help the Democrats, more accurately to defeat the incumbents.
“Withdrawing large amounts of troops” and “building a permanent base” are not necessarily contradictory, Mark.
The point rctaylor makes, on partitioning being historically a formula for future problems, is a good one. Add to the comparision of Vietnam, where we left, Korea where we stayed and partitioned the region. The net in one case is “Kimmy Boy” vs. this, for example.
http://www.oakton.edu/user/~wittman/econ.htm
19. Thats true. My intention was to show that we are being groomed for Western Europe / South Korean style occupation.
Interesting tidbits…
How about the original concept…
The person in charge of that nation was doing his BEST to beat down the religious zealots. The interfighting in his own nation. the Outer groups fighting to get INTO his country.
So, WHAT, that he was killing any that entered his nation, with ideas of taking his country, or using it as a base of operations… HE controled the country. BADLY yes. But couldnt we have helped? Or did we take offence because he TRIED to take Kuwait, and wouldnt look at any other reasoning for his dictatorship.
AFTEr we entered, there was Nothing we could have done to Stop the civil war. the Dictator was doing HIS best to slow it, by killing off the religious HEADS that were stirring up and trying to start a take over. WE didnt know or understand the internal ‘goings on’ in this nation.
AFTER we entered, THERE WAS something we could have done to STOP toehrs from entering this nation. We could have locked down the border, patroled the borders, shot anyone coming INTO this nation, without proper papers/documentation/ or reason…
But, as we ALL in the USA know…The US has a problem with protecting its OWN borders and doesnt know HOW to stop Alien nations from entering (almost) freely and without consent.
NOw we have other Zealots trying to come into this nation trying to setup Their OWN countries. And they will do what ever they NEEd or WANT to make us look bad.
Recourse:
either start at the outside or the inside of the Nation and WORK IN/OUT and clean up the rabel… do we want to stop the civil war FIRST of those coming into the country??
The problem with the civil war, is Literacy…at
Mark on the point (17) you made you are correct. I never stated, which was reinforced by Frank IBC’s comment, that America has no intention of completely leaving Iraq. I forsee about 10,000-15,000 troops either in Iraq or in Kuwait acting as QRF’s or quick reaction forces. The Middle East continues to be a troubled region full of despotic regimes, so there will need to be a international police element, fulfilled by the U.S. hopefully in concert with NATO, to secure future prosperity.
RE: the cleanup in two years. What makes anyone think that Democrats are going to give up this sort of power? Sure, a Democrat controlled Congress might offer up a repeal of the bill – it’ll pass by a bare majority. The Democrat President will then sit on it for a while before finally vetoing it because “now is not the right time.”
The only way we can end this war in Iraq and restore some of the liberties we have lost is if enough people absolutely and unequivocally refuse to vote for any politician who does not fulfil a promise to vote for a withdrawal of the troops and a restoration of those liberties. Otherwise politicians will continue to make promises and not keep them once in office because they know people will just vote the party line regardless.
Oh and also, I would like to know everyones opinion on how best to secure the future of a democratic Iraqi state. Making critisms is easy but coming up with a tenative solution is alittle harder. Are you in favor of a gradual U.S. withdrawl, substitued by U.N. peacekeepers? A complete withdrawl? Withdrawing troops in porportion to the amount of new Iraqi security forces?
I would like to know everyones opinion on how best to secure the future of a democratic Iraqi state.
Why should we CARE about the future of Iraq, “democratic” or not?
Especially if the idea of “democracy” is anything like the orwellian abomination in GWB’s fantasies.
Why should we care more about Iraq than any other third-world shithole?
25. mxpwr03: I dont believe democracy can be forced on Iraq. I really havent seen any evidence that they want democracy or could sustain it. Why do you feel we need to change their system? I think countries like Iraq and Iran that operate under a religious controlled political system, can only be changed by the people themselves, they must desire it.
Democracy isn’t being forced on Iraq, America enabled the opportunity for democracy. Did American troops go into their houses and force them to the poles? No. Did a large amount of people turn out to vote for their elected representatives? Yes. I think anyone living under a fascist regime, who isn’t a stooge of the ruling party wants freedom. The Shia south desired freedom in the 1990’s, and tried to achieve it but Saddam overpowered them. The Kurds wanted it, tried to achieve it and had their cities destroyed for their desires. Do these countries want American democracy no, they want Iraqi democracy that reflects their beliefs and customs. As far as evidence, it is far to early to say that Iraq cannot sustain a democracy.
28. I dont really believe we went into Iraq for the purpose of presenting an oppurtunity for democracy, so lets just get that out of the way. But lets say we did, democracy works here because we are religiously diversified, and because we are supposed to have a seperation of church and state. I do not see that happening in the Middle East, ever. Cant we just accept the fact that our brand of government is not always good for all countries? Also, dont we need to concentrate on our own democracy, for at the moment it is under attack, and we are in danger of losing it.
Along your line of thinking, we should then be conquering and changing (democratizing), the Middle Eastern nations one by one till we’re all one big happy family. Why stop there? China, needs to be democratic, and the North Korea (oh thats right they are the Democratic Republic of North Korea), Then theres………………………………………..where does it end in your opinion, assuming we are in Iraq for that purpose?
I wonder if Karl Rove is the new Henry Kissinger?
The first responsibility of American voters is to decide whether or not we somehow are the cops of the world. That was the question resolved by the electorate to end the VietNam War. But that doesn’t mean a damned thing to the chickenhawks who propound otherwise.
I demonstrated against that War long before Tet as did tens of thousands of Americans. I helped my peers avoid participation in that war by many political means — other than the cowardly trip reserved for the privileged sons who had National Guard berths set aside for their safety. Long before Tet.
Whiners and collaborators who think a couple of movie stars built the whole resistance to that war — must think the rest of us are as dumb as their Fearless Leader. Profits are what govern regime change — and since oil was averaging $18/barrel before the election of our slippery monarch — it’s pretty clear who profits from this War.
Except for basic humanitarian reasons, there is no just consideration for anyone to solve Bush’s War for him and his willing followers. Put ’em all on a boat and send them to Baghdad — put their butts where their slogans are! Give the Bush-lovers a year’s worth of ammo, body armor and a book on the history of colonial warfare. Let ’em cure their own problems.