Bush is full of crap on Vietnam and kuddos to all you who have posted here. Thank od he didn’t go to Vietnam, who needed a drunken flyboy overhead in an F-4 with napalm.

He couldn’t go to Vietnam. He wasn’t certified to fly the kinds of jets that were being used in Nam. He was very very protected, even from himself. He couldn’t have gone to Nam if he had begged.

And increasingly, that is Maliki’s function. Bush sorta/kinda still backs him, but he let’s his underlings do the real hatchet-work, and what is appalling to me, is that the dems are helping the repubs, as the goopers desperately strive to blame someone else for their humongous fuckup.

But bush’s balls are solidly vise-bound, because if Maliki goes; what follows?

Another election? With the way things are in Iraq now, that’s a joke.

A strong man; a la Allawi?

There goes the “democracy” fig-leaf, hiding the scrofulous third-member of oil-greed.

If Maliki’s government falls, the Brits will be looking at back to square one. Think Gordon Brown will stick around for that?

No. Bush’s ass is tied to Maliki. And he also knows that no one else is going to be able to “stabilize” Iraq. He’s stuck with keeping him at arm’s length. Close enough to use for scapegoating, but he can’t afford to go full-on Saigon-revolving-door on him.

I insist, the Brits are the key to this. When they leave, it won’t be spinnable. It will be them saying. “That’s it. No mas.”

It’s going to be a test of character for Gordon Brown, to find out how long he’s willing to see Brit troops killed to try to cover bush and the GOP’s asses long enough for them to make the long-march to the D.C. bus station in November of 2008, and dump the misery on the democrats.

It’s simple: the blame-game is GOING to be played, and it will played for the marbles in the next election. If the democrats keep shut, and keep parroting the GOP shitspeak about the Iraqi Government failing to deliver the apple-pie ending, they will be handing bush, Rove, and the rest of the republicans a chainsaw to use on them.

They shouldn’t cut the funds, but every fucking time some bushturd says:

“We can’t leave, it would be violent and chaotic.”

the democrats should be howling:

“Right you are! And which administration is responsible for that?”

“And why should we listen to you, when you tell us that things are getting better? You have ZERO cred, President Yellowcake.”

ineedalife @ 10

A couple of points before getting down to work. The first is that Bush’s ability to sell the ‘backstab’ account of our defeat in Vietnam has about as much traction as his attempt to sell the privatization of Social Security. He has no credibility, and couldn’t sell lemonade to a pack of thirsty kids on a 100 degree day. That history will not be rewritten.

I’d say he’s not selling it to you and me. The backstab story reflects another moment in history DolchstossLegende

Selling the idea of victimhood to people allows them to believe they are in the right to seek “justice”. Armed with such a belief and their righteous indignation they are immune to reason or compassion. They become willing executioners of the will of the one who promises to right the failure of the past.

Once again he is playing to his base. If we needed any further evidence that the man doesn’t care what the rest of the rational world thinks.

What he may be doing is reinforcing his 29% Remember that “in March 1932 [the man with the funny little mustache] ran for President against the incumbent President Paul von Hindenburg, polling 30.1 percent in the first round and 36.8 percent in the second.

All you need is that core 30% when you take control. Well, that and 400,000 SA.

On a different note, I’ve come to one decision: No on Hillary. Her assertion that the surge is working sent me over the edge. I can rationalize her vote for the resolution but not this. I won’t vote for under any circumstance. I won’t give any money. And I’m afraid this feeling is beginning to spill over to pretty much all Democrats. Feinstein’s vote for the FISA bill just ended any support of her she might have gotten from me.

Frankly, if there was a way of moving to Canada or England, we’d probably do it.

That POV is so American.

That POV pre-supposes that the US actually has control of Iraq.

That POV completely fails to factor in the millions of Iraqis (!) who overwhelmingly want the US to withdraw.

Iraq will never be a vassal state to the US.

The US will be expulsed by the Iraqis when the Iraqi government has drained the beast of its blood and treasure, thereby securing the continual rising of Bush’s Islamic Republic.

Strangle the fucker with his own words!!

I do not play this comment game well, perhaps because I don’t drink coffee. Everyone agrees things are bad with not much we can do about it. In hierarchical societies with penalties for not obeying orders, one is inclined to stay in line. The generals who followed orders and attacked Iraq and those who followed them, seem ready to do the same for Iran. That would be serious madness, but chances are we’ll do it if the decider so decides. I don’t know what it takes to break the habit of obedience. It must be broken because we have no alternative.

BTW I don’t know if you can get the NYT page F5 for 8/22/07. The picture will break your heart. Maybe you don’t want your heart broken.

1) liberals made us give up too soon.

2) politicians restricted the tactics of the military

Bush is probably WITH the knuckledraggers on this issue- but the point is to get em all on board solidly so that gooper congesscritters know that they’ll pay for crossing him.

The downside is that his speech makes him an obvious idiot- saying that we should have continued to fight on in the Nam- even though he wasn’t willing to risk a hair on his ass in the endeavor..

I seem to remember that he used to mouth off about “politicians lost Viet Nam” well before he got into the White House.

Fuckin idiot- and that’s bein charitable.