thedrifter
06-15-06, 05:25 AM
Bush's Baghdad Trip Awakens Ghosts of Vietnam
by RFK Lives
Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:15:29 AM PDT
The Bush WH always rejects parallels to Vietnam. It's ironic, accordingly, that it created one of its own yesterday as part of its ongoing propaganda effort for an utterly misbegotten war.
W has, of course, made 2 visits to Iraq. Both of them were kept secret in advance, both of them were the geopolitical equivalent of airport fly-ins, and both were conducted solely for PR reasons. Both of them have a great deal in common w/ the 2 presidential visits to Vietnam.
RFK Lives's diary :: ::
LBJ visited Cam Ranh Bay on 10/26/66. His visit was to a highly secured area, and it only lasted a few hours. Its sole purpose was to support the myth that a corner was being turned in Vietnam.
Nixon visited Vietnam on 7/30/69. His visit, as I understand it, was kept secret in advance. It also lasted a few hours, and its purpose was also to support the myth that a corner was being turned in Vietnam.
These obvious historical parallels appear to have been missed in news coverage today. From a policy-making standpoint, nothing was gained by sending W into Iraq yesterday. If he truly needed to meet the new nominal Iraqi govt in person, they could've gone to DC, or he could've met them somewhere in Europe. The sole purpose of the visit was to burnish the myth that still another corner has been turned in Iraq.
The MSM does deserve some credit for not making that big of a deal about this visit. Perhaps, in its own half-assed way, it is acknowledging the truth about the trip. It would be nice, however, if some broader geopolitical conclusions were drawn.
We were told in 2003 that American troops would be greeted w/ candy and flowers. Over 3 years later, the CIC cannot let anyone know in advance that he is visiting the country, and, when he does so, he goes for just a few hours and never leaves a highly secured compound. Shouldn't this visit be viewed as a sign of abject failure instead of being viewed as a springboard for the 2006 GOP campaign?
It's obvious what the Rethugs plan for this year. Once again, the War on Terra, smears of opponents, and Diebold will be relied upon. Rove pretty well said so on Monday night (at least he acknowledged the first 2 prongs of the assault).
If the Dems plan on winning the victory that should rightfully be theirs, they need to firmly and forthrightly state the self-evident truth that this war has been an abject failure. Over 2400 American kids are dead, thousands more have been wounded, hundreds of billions have been wasted (a few billion simply disappeared), and our CIC still has to sneak into the country if he wants to do a photo op. How can such a fiasco be anything but political poison this fall for the party that initiated and "managed" it?
If the Dems allow the GOP to spin Iraq as a success, they deserve to lose.
Ellie
by RFK Lives
Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:15:29 AM PDT
The Bush WH always rejects parallels to Vietnam. It's ironic, accordingly, that it created one of its own yesterday as part of its ongoing propaganda effort for an utterly misbegotten war.
W has, of course, made 2 visits to Iraq. Both of them were kept secret in advance, both of them were the geopolitical equivalent of airport fly-ins, and both were conducted solely for PR reasons. Both of them have a great deal in common w/ the 2 presidential visits to Vietnam.
RFK Lives's diary :: ::
LBJ visited Cam Ranh Bay on 10/26/66. His visit was to a highly secured area, and it only lasted a few hours. Its sole purpose was to support the myth that a corner was being turned in Vietnam.
Nixon visited Vietnam on 7/30/69. His visit, as I understand it, was kept secret in advance. It also lasted a few hours, and its purpose was also to support the myth that a corner was being turned in Vietnam.
These obvious historical parallels appear to have been missed in news coverage today. From a policy-making standpoint, nothing was gained by sending W into Iraq yesterday. If he truly needed to meet the new nominal Iraqi govt in person, they could've gone to DC, or he could've met them somewhere in Europe. The sole purpose of the visit was to burnish the myth that still another corner has been turned in Iraq.
The MSM does deserve some credit for not making that big of a deal about this visit. Perhaps, in its own half-assed way, it is acknowledging the truth about the trip. It would be nice, however, if some broader geopolitical conclusions were drawn.
We were told in 2003 that American troops would be greeted w/ candy and flowers. Over 3 years later, the CIC cannot let anyone know in advance that he is visiting the country, and, when he does so, he goes for just a few hours and never leaves a highly secured compound. Shouldn't this visit be viewed as a sign of abject failure instead of being viewed as a springboard for the 2006 GOP campaign?
It's obvious what the Rethugs plan for this year. Once again, the War on Terra, smears of opponents, and Diebold will be relied upon. Rove pretty well said so on Monday night (at least he acknowledged the first 2 prongs of the assault).
If the Dems plan on winning the victory that should rightfully be theirs, they need to firmly and forthrightly state the self-evident truth that this war has been an abject failure. Over 2400 American kids are dead, thousands more have been wounded, hundreds of billions have been wasted (a few billion simply disappeared), and our CIC still has to sneak into the country if he wants to do a photo op. How can such a fiasco be anything but political poison this fall for the party that initiated and "managed" it?
If the Dems allow the GOP to spin Iraq as a success, they deserve to lose.
Ellie