11 hours ago
Thursday, August 23, 2007
when ted kennedy called iraq "bush's vietnam," gops from bush to mccain (as well as right-wing pundits and bloggers) lined up to deny the analogy and continue to claim iraq is a central front in the war on terror (which is like no other war, of course, as you know).
but now that his partisans have been preparing the ground with the absurd delusion that we would've won the viet war if we'd stayed longer, mr bush—who got reelected in part by labeling his opponent "flip-flop"—says iraq's like a lot of past wars and another vietnam after all.
he's been wrong on just about everything else, but now he's taken both sides, so i'm confused: was kennedy right or wrong?
one difference i can point to, the generals: waste-more-land then, betray-us now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This loser we have as president will say and do anything to further his own (mysterious) interests. I didn't used to use words like "loser, nut, clown, insane, etc." to describe the president out of respect for the Office -- but he's trashed the office and I'll be damned if I'll defer to etiquette when talking about that moron any longer. I get the Army Times every week (Mondays) and to the extent that they can, they post pictures of the previous week's fallen. I look at every one of them. Yes, I blame the insurgents of the country we illegally invaded an occupied, but I also blame the Mad-man-in-Chief for each needless life Bush has sacrificed so that we can spend a few dollars less filling the tanks of our speed boats.
ReplyDeleteP.S. I think Kennedy was right.
i still don' buy in2 calling them 'insurgents.' they didn' rebel against established authority, they're resisting foreign invaders/occupiers. it's not that subtle a difference, but hearing the word repeatedly makes mos' folk overlook the distinction.
ReplyDeleteamen 2 the rest o wha u say.