A grossly misplaced comparison

Ever since “President” Bush compared Iraq to Vietnam earlier this week, I’ve been trying to figure out just what to say about it.

Obviously Bush’s comparison is so-far off the mark, that a plethora of people on all sides of the political spectrum are voicing their disagreement, and it’s not likely to get any better.

Now we have a republican senator who has been one of the most outspoken supporters of the war, John Warner (r-VA), is calling for a pullout of US troops by this winter.

Surely Bush has to see that support is crumbling faster than Nicole Richie’s jail sentence.

Add that to (outgoing) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Peter Pace, who, according to an as-yet unpublished report, wants to urge Bush to cut US troops in Iraq, saying that keeping "more than 100,000 troops in Iraq through next year would severely strain the military.” (ya think????)

Now we know why Bush didn’t’ nominate Pace for a second term as chairman… Pace apparently likes to use his own brain.

The liberation of Iraq… begetting the establishing of Democracy for Iraq… begetting the “surge” for stability....

Well, with all this ‘begetting’, no wonder Bush is getting desperate and throwing out the Vietnam card.

The problem is… the comparison doesn’t work.

As Jim Hoagland says in his Washington Post op-ed, “Bush's Vietnam Blunder”, his invoking of ‘Nam doesn’t create a rationale for continuing our military presence in Iraq, but rather invites “examination of the mounting damage that his approaches to the war in Iraq, and to national security in general are doing to U. S. institutions.”

Having said all this, keep in mind that there are some parallels to Vietnam and the Iraq war. First, both are quagmires with little chance, if any, of success. Both wars were based on spurious reasoning and both wars are highly unpopular at home.

And now he’s going to compare the two and hope for a favorable response?

How stupid is this man?