Bush to invoke Vietnam in arguing against Iraq pullout

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Nov 27, 2006
5,648
21
0
36
#1
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As he awaits a crucial progress report on Iraq, President Bush will try to put a twist on comparisons of the war to Vietnam by invoking the historical lessons of that conflict to argue against pulling out.
art.bush.ap.jpg

President Bush pauses Tuesday during a news conference at the North American Leaders summit in Canada.

On Wednesday in Kansas City, Missouri, Bush will tell members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that "then, as now, people argued that the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end," according to speech excerpts released Tuesday by the White House.

"Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left," Bush will say.

"Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields,' " the president will say.

The president will also make the argument that withdrawing from Vietnam emboldened today's terrorists by compromising U.S. credibility, citing a quote from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden that the American people would rise against the Iraq war the same way they rose against the war in Vietnam, according to the excerpts.

"Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility, but the terrorists see things differently," Bush will say.
Don't Miss

* Bush sees progress, but speaks of 'frustration'
* Iraqi rivals look for reconciliation formula
* Poll: Majority mistrustful of upcoming Iraq report

The White House is billing the speech, along with another address next week to the American Legion, as an effort to "provide broader context" for the debate over the upcoming Iraq progress report by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad.

President Bush has frequently asked lawmakers -- and the American people -- to withhold judgment on his troop "surge" in Iraq until the report comes out in September. Video Watch Bush criticize the Iraqi government »

It is being closely watched on Capitol Hill, particularly by Republicans nervous about the political fallout from an increasingly unpopular war.

Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would wait for the report before deciding when a drawdown of the 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq might begin.

Bush's speeches Wednesday and next week are the latest in a series of attempts by the White House to try to reframe the debate over Iraq, as public support for the war continues to sag.

A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that almost two-thirds of Americans -- 64 percent -- now oppose the Iraq war, and 72 percent say that even if Petraeus reports progress, it won't change their opinion.

The poll also found a great deal of skepticism about the report; 53 percent said they do not trust Petraeus to give an accurate assessment of the situation in Iraq.

In addition to his analogy to Vietnam, Bush in Wednesday's speech will invoke other historical comparisons from Asia, including the U.S. defeat and occupation of Japan after World War II and the Korean War in the 1950s, according to the excerpts.

"In the aftermath of Japan's surrender, many thought it naive to help the Japanese transform themselves into a democracy. Then, as now, the critics argued that some people were simply not fit for freedom," Bush will say. "Today, in defiance of the critics, Japan ... stands as one of the world's great free societies."

Speaking about the Korean War, Bush will note that at the time "critics argued that the war was futile, that we never should have sent our troops in, or that America's intervention was divisive here at home."

"While it is true that the Korean War had its share of challenges, America never broke its word," Bush will say. "Without America's intervention during the war, and our willingness to stick with the South Koreans after the war, millions of South Koreans would now be living under a brutal and repressive regime."

Interesting.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#3
What an absolute moron.

"Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields,' " the president will say.
Yes, the MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THAT DIED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE US INVASION!!

So, "the killing fields" and I assume he's talking about the genocide in Cambodia, was a direct result of the US withdrawing from Vietnam or a direct result of the invasion? How many hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent people were killed during the Illegal bombings of Cambodia during the Vietnam war?

And I forgot, my history is fuzzy, who put a stop to the Genocide and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? Was it the US or was it the Socialist Republic of Vietnam?? Oh, and did Washington support the Khmer Rouge Party and Pol Pot?? Did Washington turn a blind eye to the genocide and actually played a key role in the Khmer Rouge's success as long as they were enemies of Vietnam!?? Riddle me that batman!
 
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#5
2-0-Sixx said:
What an absolute moron.



Yes, the MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THAT DIED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE US INVASION!!

So, "the killing fields" and I assume he's talking about the genocide in Cambodia, was a direct result of the US withdrawing from Vietnam or a direct result of the invasion? How many hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent people were killed during the Illegal bombings of Cambodia during the Vietnam war?

And I forgot, my history is fuzzy, who put a stop to the Genocide and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? Was it the US or was it the Socialist Republic of Vietnam?? Oh, and did Washington support the Khmer Rouge Party and Pol Pot?? Did Washington turn a blind eye to the genocide and actually played a key role in the Khmer Rouge's success as long as they were enemies of Vietnam!?? Riddle me that batman!
Does GW assume people don't know that? Just wondering what makes him say such crazy shit. Great points.
 

Hemp

Sicc OG
Sep 5, 2005
1,248
2
0
#7
History is written by the winners - napolean


its funny how these dumb ignorant mother fuckers say the corruption happened because we are pullin OUT rather then from us going in in the first place. Just like iraq.
 

Hemp

Sicc OG
Sep 5, 2005
1,248
2
0
#9
yes i know but bush blames the instability of the economy on being the reason for us to be in iraq, while the truth is the instability is because we have entered iraq in the first place .
 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#10
the truth is there has not been stability in the middle east for centuries. stop with the denial and your sugary hopes that when we leave the world will be a perfect place. we will NEVER leave. we have discussed the reasons for the US/israeli judeo-christian vs islam involvement in the broader middle east at length. nobody gives a fuck about vietnam. we are playing chess; the nuclear secret, religion, economics, zionism, jihad, aq khan, jesus christ, the temple mount. george bush is strictly speaking to pawns and you all sit intently soaking up and critiquing what he says. pull your head out of your ass, this shit has been going on long before, and will go on long after george bush, your wetdream scapegoat.
 
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#11
nhojsmith said:
the truth is there has not been stability in the middle east for centuries. stop with the denial and your sugary hopes that when we leave the world will be a perfect place. we will NEVER leave. we have discussed the reasons for the US/israeli judeo-christian vs islam involvement in the broader middle east at length. nobody gives a fuck about vietnam. we are playing chess; the nuclear secret, religion, economics, zionism, jihad, aq khan, jesus christ, the temple mount. george bush is strictly speaking to pawns and you all sit intently soaking up and critiquing what he says. pull your head out of your ass, this shit has been going on long before, and will go on long after george bush, your wetdream scapegoat.
where do you live?
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#13
nhojsmith said:
the truth is there has not been stability in the middle east for centuries. stop with the denial and your sugary hopes that when we leave the world will be a perfect place. we will NEVER leave. we have discussed the reasons for the US/israeli judeo-christian vs islam involvement in the broader middle east at length. nobody gives a fuck about vietnam. we are playing chess; the nuclear secret, religion, economics, zionism, jihad, aq khan, jesus christ, the temple mount. george bush is strictly speaking to pawns and you all sit intently soaking up and critiquing what he says. pull your head out of your ass, this shit has been going on long before, and will go on long after george bush, your wetdream scapegoat.
Unfortunately not everyone knows the history of Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. so when dubya makes comments like this it is necessary to critique them. I know, most everyone in this forum knows why he makes these kinds of statements but that doesn't mean we cannot hold discussions regarding how inaccurate and full of bullshit they are.
 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#15
2-0-Sixx said:
Unfortunately not everyone knows the history of Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. so when dubya makes comments like this it is necessary to critique them. I know, most everyone in this forum knows why he makes these kinds of statements but that doesn't mean we cannot hold discussions regarding how inaccurate and full of bullshit they are.
i wasnt really talking about you cause you are speaking directly to vietnam while the rest just spit the usual, but i dont really see the point in calling somebody a liar, believing that they are a liar, telling everyone that they are a liar, and then still going ahead and dissecting what they say as if you expected them to speak the truth.
 
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#16
nhojsmith said:
i wasnt really talking about you cause you are speaking directly to vietnam while the rest just spit the usual, but i dont really see the point in calling somebody a liar, believing that they are a liar, telling everyone that they are a liar, and then still going ahead and dissecting what they say as if you expected them to speak the truth.


your arrogance is funny
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#18
From an article:

Bush’s reference—invoking the “killing fields” of Cambodia—to the mass murder carried out by the Cambodian Khmer Rouge after the 1975 defeat of the US in Vietnam is yet another grotesque whitewash of America’s role. The horrific events that unfolded in Cambodia were set into motion by the United States’ invasion of that country in 1970. The illegal Cambodian invasion was one of the articles of impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon in 1974.

Following the US invasion, Washington engineered the overthrow of the government of Norodom Sihanouk and the installation of the American puppet Lon Nol, who subsequently fell to the Khmer Rouge. In the midst of the Khmer Rouge’s bloody rampage, the US supported it against the Vietnamese. The terror in Cambodia was ended only when the Vietnamese entered the country and brought down the Khmer Rouge regime. Source
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#19
Fuck it, I'll post more cuz it's a good read. Same source:

For millions of people around the world, the US war in Vietnam is associated with other terms, which have come to denote American atrocities and war crimes: terms like “My Lai,” “agent orange,” “napalm,” “Christmas bombing” and “destroying the village to save it.”

During the conflict, approximately 3 to 4 million Vietnamese were killed, in addition to another 1.5 to 2 million Lao and Cambodians. As in Korea, the United States intervened to prop up a brutal and despotic US puppet government in the South. Both wars exemplified the role of US imperialism in seeking to thwart the legitimate impulse of the Asian masses for national independence and freedom from foreign imperialist domination.

As the historian Robert Dallek said in response to Bush’s twisted reference to Vietnam: “We were in Vietnam for ten years. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we did in all of World War II in every theater. We lost 58,700 American lives, the second-greatest loss of lives in a foreign conflict....

“What is Bush suggesting? That we didn’t fight hard enough, stay long enough?”

One inconvenient fact Bush omits is the refusal of the United States and its puppet regime in Saigon to abide by the provisions of the 1954 Geneva Accords, which called for national elections in 1956 to choose a government of a unified Vietnam. At the time, US President Dwight Eisenhower acknowledged that if elections had been held, Ho Chi Minh would have won 80 percent of the vote.

[...]

In his attempt to discredit critics of the Vietnam War, Bush ventures a literary allusion, citing Graham Greene’s 1955 novel about American intrigue in Vietnam, The Quiet American. Bush describes the main character, Alden Pyle, as a “young government agent” who is a “symbol of American purpose and patriotism—and dangerous naiveté.”

He neglects to mention that Pyle is a covert US intelligence agent who promotes a right-wing military thug as a counterweight to Communist-led nationalist forces and is implicated in a terrorist bombing in Saigon. One might safely assume that Bush has never seen the film, let alone read the book.

Bush’s claim that America’s withdrawal from Vietnam was responsible for mass killings and other atrocities is an attempt to lend historical credibility to the constant invocations of the threat of a bloodbath in Iraq should the US end its military occupation.

This is an argument worthy of a war criminal. The United States, by invading and occupying a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and represented no threat to the American people, has reduced an entire society to ruin and killed hundreds of thousands of its people. It has brought the horrors of Abu Ghraib, fueled sectarian warfare and ethnic cleansing, and turned Iraq into a living hell.

[...]

It is worth taking note of the response of the semi-official organ of American liberalism, the New York Times, to Bush’s speech. In a “news analysis” published Thursday, Thom Shanker writes: “President Bush is right on the factual record, according to historians.”

This attempt to dignify Bush’s wretched exercise in lies as though it were a legitimate contribution to historical debate is indicative of the general environment of unscrupulousness, ignorance and deceit that characterizes the entire American ruling establishment, and underscores the complicity of all of the official parties and institutions in US imperialism’s crimes.