Bush backs Cheney: says Democratic questioning not patriotic

Vietnam Archive Casts a Shadow Across Decades

By THOM SHANKER and DAVID STOUT
Published: November 17, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - White House advisers convene secret sessions about the political dangers of revelations that American troops committed atrocities in the war zone, and about whether the president can delicately intervene in the investigation. In the face of an increasingly unpopular war, they wonder at the impact on support at home. The best way out of the war, they agree, is to prop up a new government that they hope can unite the fractured foreign land.

The National Archives and Records Administration on Wednesday released 50,000 pages of previously classified documents from the Nixon administration that reveal how all of that president's men wrestled with issues that eerily parallel problems facing the Bush administration.

There are many significant differences between the wars in Vietnam and in Iraq - a point that senior administration officials make at any opportunity. But in tone and content, the Nixon-era debate about the impact of that generation's war - and of war-crimes trials - on public support for the military effort and for White House domestic initiatives strikes many familiar chords.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/international/17nixon.html

When a non-patriot GWB, who never served in Vietnam, is put on the spot he naturally comes to the aid of his non-patriot comrade Cheney who also never served in Vietnam.

Only 'Nam vets can be considered patriotic? How sad for all those brave souls fighting in Iraq and all the other areas of the world.

Well, not one to jump to the rescue of the 'lil c'boy, but he actually said that irresponsible questioning of the President and his policies bothers him, not that simply questioning the President himself was either unpatriotic or undemocratic.
But nevertheless...I had to listen to the video becasue I couldn't bear to watch the new animation settings that his handlers are having him pilot.

McG

Now and again, you are available for a reality-based conversation.

Clearly, we can posit that the Republicans and WH are attempting to turn Bush's poll ratings around, particularly as regards how people are coming to believe that he is not trustworthy and that the administration used deceits in the run-up to the war. But also, they are seeking to move out of defence and into offence, not just as a matter of what is the better position to be in, but also to try and portray Bush as a dynamic and competent leader who has everyone in his party behind him and who can deliver safety to the people. No?

As strategists, they would be arguably incompetent if they did not so act. No?

The thread title is a lie, not that that matters to most everyone here.

I saw the speech today. He said the opposite.

Don't you people have even a passing interest in the truth.

I never served in Vietnam,so I guess I'm not a patriot,right?

Of course,I have served in several other operations,including serving in both Afghanistan AND Iraq.
I left part of my right hand in Iraq also.

But,I'm not a patriot.
Then what am I?

For anyone actully interested in the truth, here is what Bush said today:

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

So the title of this thread should be Questioning Bush's Iraq Policy Is Patriotic.
I reckon you are right, blueflame1, when you say that "There are many differences between the wars in Vietnam and Iraq..." Historians and White House spinners can say that all day long. But tell that to the guys on the ground or to the families of the 2000 US soldiers killed and 15000 physically wounded, and god knows how many more psychologically hurt.
I take no satisfaction from reading the post I made on the eve of our getting into this. This is a mistake, I wrote.
Vietnam and Iraq comparisons? Unfair, perhaps, but the American public is turning against this war and against Mr Bush in increasing numbers.
How can we possibly extricate ourselves from this?
(ps: I respect Lash and McGentrix a lot. You guys take a lot of abuse, such as it is on A2K. But you keep coming back)

For once (and I don't intend to make a habit of it, I assure you), I have to side with the Right Wing on this one. (1) The headline on this thread is a misquote (to be charitable about it); and (2) what has Vietnam service got to do with the price of oranges in Tikrit?

<appreciative, johnboy and MA>

<nods>