Rosa Brooks has the ultimate Bushite modest proposal -- let's re-invade Vietnam.
« Friday Cardigans Blogging | Main | A Surge of Madness »
Onward to Hanoi
24 Aug 2007 06:17 pm
Comments (14)
Pierre's snarkasm detector must have come out of the same factory in China where bush's historical perspective came from. Too much lead paint, the lot of ya! Better clean it off with some napalm.
Brilliant! but not before we invade Iran I hope. There is, of course, no reason not to undertake both invasions simultaneously.
I think we should just stick with Iran. Vietnamese babies are a bit...gamy.
Don't forget Syria too! And Hezbollah in Lebanon!
@Gregorio: I recognized Rosa's column as that, but, well, I really did want the "Apocalypse Now" link. More seriously, though, the President's references to Vietnam are a "misreading" (to be charitable) of vast sections of history, beginning with the occupation of the Axis powers. Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has written a great post on the speech here ; it contains a powerful set of charges of failure by the President and his administration then follows with this:
"...
And now, when all this carelessness and stupidity is having its inevitable effect, Bush pretends it doesn't exist. The only way we can fail, he says, is if the American people and their representatives withdraw their support -- ignoring completely his own role in making failure inevitable.
..."
There is a great deal more and it should be read.
I however, will leave for home, have a beer with some friends, then try not to think about this debacle until Sunday morning.
cheers,
I'm sure she started writing long before it came out, but she was scooped by the 8/23 episode of the Daily Show, which had the same response.
Ah well, I've no doubt others had the same response independently (though I didn't see it on the internets yesterday). It's still a good bit of snark.
Uhm, let's NOT give Bush any ideas, okay?
Because by himself, without Dick Cheney, he doesn't have any.
So hinting that the US should re-invade Vietnam is just something that freak might take seriously.
I was sure a year or two ago that the US was going to attack North Vietnam. Silly me. They actually HAVE nukes and a military that can kick our butts. So that was a non-starter even for George, once the Pentagon told him they expected 50,000 US casualties in the first ninety days of a war with North Korea.
And of course they don't have any oil.
So Iran it is (and Israel will attack Syria and Lebanon as well to try to destroy Hizballah.) The only question now is when.
Vietnam to America:
BRING IT ON!
Gee, too bad that flaming liberal NIXON and his closet-commie sidekick KISSINGER had to go and lose that darn thing. Good thing they dragged it out past the election though. Lots of lessons there.
With Jalmari's reminder about Kissinger, it all begins to make sense.
I guess Kissinger is jealous that Cheney is getting all the war-criminal action these days, and has decided to one-up Cheney; after all, Dick came back and got Dubya to press on to Baghdad, 12 years after Dick missed the opportunity. Kissinger must have realized he can get Dubya to press on to Hanoi, 32 years later. That's got to win ... until someone resurrects the American Expeditionary Force Siberia, and presses on to Moscow.
I think such an escalating series of invasions to redress our nation's unfinished military interventions will only end when we finally liberate Canada from the British.
Faster, please.
Man, that's weird:
an actual *good* editorial, in an actual print newspaper.
If only the national press had known how to do that six years ago, we wouldn't be here now.
But total props to Brooks--that is first-rate!
The op-ed writer makes a valid point.
When was the last time the President of the United States gave a major speech whose central point was that America was responsible for a terrible bloodbath, and then didn't go on to suggest we should do anything about it?
The President isn't a historian. His job isn't to give us history lessons. It's to bring the nation to action.
So, having said that we are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Vietnam--those who supported our efforts in the war there--what does he plan to do about it? The Communist leadership who committed these crimes is still in power and doubtless, many of the people who actually sent folks into re-education camps still hold positions in the government. They're not in jail, as far as I know. Is the President going to get justice for them and their families? Set up a war crimes tribunal? Re-invade and remove them from power?
He can't just say "we're responsible for hundreds of thousands dead in Vietnam and Cambodia, so let's talk about Iraq." Many of the people who killed hundreds of thousands are still, like Osama bin Laden, on the loose. What is he asking America to do? If he thinks America is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, what does he plan to do to rectify that?
He's the most powerful man in the world. He's the decider! He's not the history talker.
Comments closed September 07, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Oh gee ...
well, I guess This is the End (too good to miss this opportunity). More seriously, reopening Vietnam is .... desperate?
Posted by Pierre de Fermat | August 24, 2007 6:41 PM