Analogy Day

Here's a Guardian column on Bush's Asian analogies speech. I'll quote my own conclusion, then you can follow the link and see the reasoning:

For months now, many conservatives have been fundamentally positioning themselves for the post-war era, readying the arguments that will blame the failure of the venture in Iraq on its opponents rather than its architects. That Bush himself has chosen to join them is, perhaps, on some level the clearest reflection of the reality that the president knows perfectly well that the war is unwinnable, and blame-shifting now the best hope for saving his historical legacy.

While you're there, check out Spencer Ackerman on Carl Levin's irresponsible Maliki-bashing.

Comments

You can't impose democracy on the end of a bayonet. In fact, bayonets tend to have the opposite effect. This is double-true if what you tend to impose is not even democracy, but mere rapcious pallaging followed by half-assed nation-building lite where all the contracts go to your buddies and the locals are derided for being lazy and inept and full of shrapnel. The Bushies are flailing, it's pathetic, and I for one don't want these assholes taking us down with them.

Posted by Gregorio | August 22, 2007 3:20 PM

PALLAGING- it's the kind of friendly pillaging that hurts me more than it does you!

Posted by Geo. W. | August 22, 2007 3:21 PM

QUESTION: How do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

BUSH: I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy.

To be fair, that was over three years ago for a President who can't remember not to give people neck massages against their will on a daily basis.

Posted by norbizness | August 22, 2007 3:27 PM

I wouldn't be so sure that you can't impose democracy on the end of a bayonet. It's nice (maybe) to think that bayonets don't work, but sometimes they do. Notably, the troops who desegregated Central High School in Little Rock did so with fixed bayonets. You can argue about how well it worked in the long run, but many people today and then would applaud Eisenhower for using soldiers to enforce desegregation as ordered by the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, while I think the unqualified statement is false, I do think Iraq is very different from Little Rock and other historical examples like Japan. Bayonets sometimes work, but so far they haven't had a stunning success in Iraq.

Posted by Double Guantanamo | August 22, 2007 3:56 PM

Senate GOP Senate Leader and President Bush: U.S. Would Pull Troops if Maliki Wants Them Out

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Sunday on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that the United States would "certainly" leave Iraq if the Iraqi government were to ever decide it wanted U.S. troops out of the war-torn country.

"If the Iraqi government ever decides they want us to leave," said McConnell, "then certainly we would comply with their wishes, they are a duly elected sovereign government."

Even though the issue has not yet come to a formal vote, a majority of the members of the Iraqi parliament signed onto a resolution earlier this month calling for the United States to get out of Iraq. McConnell's comments were prompted by Stephanopoulos asking: "Shouldn't their wishes count here?"

(snip)

In an interview last month with PBS's Charlie Rose, President Bush said the U.S. would leave Iraq if asked to do so by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

"This is a guy," said Bush of Maliki on April 24, "who has been elected by the people. And it's a sovereign nation. And we're there at their request. The truth of the matter is, if they said 'get out now, we're tired of coalition presence, the U.S.'s presence is counterproductive,' we would leave."

I wonder how this all plays into the so-called coup rumors?

Posted by Jimm | August 22, 2007 4:49 PM

Bayonet-point democracy = foreign imposition of a necessarily voluntary system on an unwilling populace, a la Iraq. Bayonet-point law enforcement = enforcement of the law against a dissenting, domestic reactionary group, a la desegregation.

Stop being stupid.

Posted by Gregorio | August 22, 2007 5:46 PM

norbizness, here's one from November 8 2006:

Q Mr. President, you mentioned the prospect that your successor would be dealing with the war. You'll be making your first trip to Vietnam in roughly a week. Some people are still -- are looking at the war as another Vietnam War. Are they wrong to do so? And if so, why?

THE PRESIDENT: I think they are. I think they are. [I can list three differences here at this podium right off the back of my hand.] So I don't think it is a parallel.

Posted by buermann | August 23, 2007 1:20 PM