Saying What I Mean

Ilan Goldenberg calls me out over this post and he has the goods:

In fact, that's exactly what they did.  Ten minutes after the President's speech ended yesterday 40 reporters from many of the key mainstream media outlets got on a press call sponsored by the National Security Network with with General John Johns, General Robert Gard, Rand Beers, Larry Korb and Steven Simon (Of the hated Council on Foreign Relations).  For over an hour these experts took the time to explain to the press why the President's comparison to Vietnam was bull.

These stories don't write themselves.  There is a reason the speech got trashed yesterday  by the media and the clerisy had a great deal to do with that.

I'm afraid a bloggerish tendency toward sarcasm, in-group lingo and a proclivity to write in haste and a degree of anger got the better of me here. I wanted to make a point about Brookings and about Peter Rodman and I should have just made it and not gotten re-entanged in this larger and increasingly vague debate about clerisies. I think the people at the National Security Network do great work and deserve more support and attention.

Comments

Wow. I guess I sympathize with Matt here, in that no reasonable person would expect this kind of organization and messaging from our side of the debate. Somewhere pigs are flying.

Posted by Steve | August 23, 2007 5:43 PM

Bush's speech was "trashed" in the traditional media? Where? Out here in flyover country it got the usual respectful recitation in every paper I saw, with what little dissent was reported confined to paragraph 25 or later.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | August 23, 2007 5:48 PM

I have to wonder why when Democrats can compare Iraq to Vietnam for four years it is spot on but when the President does he is an idiot?

Posted by danceswithgoats | August 23, 2007 5:58 PM

I have to wonder why when Democrats can compare Iraq to Vietnam for four years it is spot on but when the President does he is an idiot?

Perhaps because the President is an idiot not for making a comparison to Vietnam, but for claiming that our mistake in Vietnam was leaving too soon. Talk about failing to learn the lessons!

Posted by Steve | August 23, 2007 6:02 PM

I have to wonder why when Democrats can compare Iraq to Vietnam for four years it is spot on but when the President does he is an idiot?

Agreed! I'm sure some liberal types will tell you that it's all about the substance of the comparisons, but obviously they're being hypocrites by not acknowledging that all Vietname comparisons are exactly the same.

Posted by strannix | August 23, 2007 6:12 PM

I was at the speech and he did not say that the mistake was leaving too soon. I am trying to find a complete transcript. The Vietnam piece was only part of the speech. The main part was about the transition of Japan and Korea into thriving economies/democracies. The thrust of the Vietnam piece was:

1. Leaving will result in a lot more dead than staying long term.
2. Leaving will result in a greater instability in the region.
3. Leaving will be a huge propaganda victory for our enemies who use Vietnam as an analogy.

Posted by danceswithgoats | August 23, 2007 6:16 PM

Bush said:

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."

But no, of course he wasn't suggesting that it was a mistake for us to leave Vietnam. Of course not.

Posted by Steve | August 23, 2007 6:32 PM

Dances with goats can apparently also interpret their incoherent bleating and bullet-point it for the rest of us numbskulls to unnnerstan. Thank you for distilling His Most Majestic Brilliance's [HMMB tm] eloquentiferous speechifications into a few bite-sized (albeit chewy) glaringly wrong talking points. Bravo, wingnut, have an apple then go fuck your goat!

Posted by Gregorio | August 23, 2007 6:38 PM

Yes, but your previous post made me laugh out loud.

Posted by Bribes | August 23, 2007 6:41 PM

I've got a shiny dime that says that danceswithgoats is Al's new nom de net.

(cue "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" and "talking money" quip)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 23, 2007 6:52 PM

Screw that. You were right the first time.

People are debating historical analogies and 1950s novels - not the clusterf%ck that is Iraq. The 'clerisy' likes talking about irrelevant history and how their scary Jeopardy knowledge can change the world. The dopey press likes repeating tired ass stories. What nobody in the press or foreign policy establishment likes talking about and what we desparately need to talk about is how Bush is a shameless liar who will tell any tall-tale rather than admit he was wrong. Bush would grind the US military into dust rather than ever take one ounce of responsibility for his mistakes. Bush is a shifty liar and the shiftiness of yesterday's remarks remain an unexamined topic today. Need proof Bush is shifty on the topic of analogies between Iraq and Vietnam?

1)Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half Americans now support it. What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

THE PRESIDENT: 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. Look, this is hard work. It's hard to advance freedom in a country that has been strangled by tyranny. And, yet, we must stay the course, because the end result is in our nation's interest.

2) Q Some people make a parallel between Iraq and Vietnam. Do you see it?

THE PRESIDENT: I know that people are anxious to be free. They were glad to get rid of Saddam Hussein. They were pleased when his sons met their demise. This person tortured, brutalized an entire population. And it's a different situation.

Q I didn't hear the word "Vietnam" in your answer.

THE PRESIDENT: No, because -- I gave you the answer, you asked the question. You asked me if there's parallel. I said it's a different situation.

3) Q [...] Do you see, as some of your critics do, a parallel between what's going on in Iraq now and Vietnam?

THE PRESIDENT: No.

Q Why?

THE PRESIDENT: Because there's a duly-elected government; 12 million people voted. They said, we want something different from tyranny, we want to live in a free society. And not only did they vote for a government, they voted for a constitution. Obviously, there is sectarian violence, but this is, in many ways, religious in nature, and I don't see the parallels.

* * * * *
Do I hear the clerisy talking about how Bush is totally full of shit or do they want to debate the details of Quan Loi and old novels? Bush's speech yesterday wasn't an opportunity to reminisce about the Domino Theory. I heard alot about the 1973 from the press but not nearly enough about how Bush has completely reversed himself on what he has said since 2003 - there are no parallels between Iraq and Vietnam.

Yesterday he pulls some big parallels out of his ass and I'm somehow supposed to forget the numerous times Bush called these parellels so much bullshit. Well I didn't forget but since the clerisy (and more importantly the press) won't call Bush on the flip flop we're stuck here debating Alden Pyle and Henry Kissenger.

Posted by joejoejoe | August 23, 2007 7:02 PM

Not sure who Al is but it ain't me.

Steve - the point was not "leaving too soon".

A rapid withdrawal from Iraq would result in everything that I put in a bullet for you to "unnerstan". True or false?

Goats aren't my type. A nice wooly sheep; now we're talkin'!

Posted by danceswithgoats | August 23, 2007 7:06 PM

Joejoejoe (if that is your real name),

I think the difference is that in your quotes Bush is referring to the situation in Iraq as compared to Vietnam. Even a cursory examination of fact will tell you there are marked differences. I do think there is an accurate analogy to be made between the end in Vietnam and a precipitious withdrawal from Vietnam.

Posted by danceswithgoats | August 23, 2007 7:11 PM

Actually meant withdrawal from Iraq not Vietnam.

Posted by danceswithgoats | August 23, 2007 7:12 PM

DWG- why are YOU pwning YOURSELF, why are YOU PWNing YOURself?

Posted by Buster Bluth | August 23, 2007 7:18 PM

Actually meant withdrawal from Iraq not Vietnam.

Ehh, what's the difference?

Posted by JH | August 23, 2007 7:18 PM

The only difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that Mother Earth pre-napalmed Iraq for us!

Posted by Gregorio | August 23, 2007 7:19 PM

Seriously, next freeper that utters the phrase "turn the whole region into glass" is gonna get a size 12 pacifist boot right up his ex-Foley-ated ass. The 'wingers get positively JUICED at the prospect of "nuking" something, anything, that will get their mind off that time at Young Repub sleepaway camp Poppa Bear Bob Allen stuck his paw in the honey pot and left a crisp fiver in the tip jar.

Posted by Gregorio | August 23, 2007 7:25 PM

Gregorio - so Bush is right or wrong? Iraq is Vietnam or not? You can't have it both ways. Having spent some time in the area, I will agree with the pre-napalmed view.

Buster - I have to wonder if you don't live in your mother's basement.

I actually enjoy this blog because of the ideas exchanged. You two detract from that. Try racheting up your arguments a bit.

Posted by danceswithgoats | August 23, 2007 7:26 PM

I've got a shiny dime that says that danceswithgoats is Al's new nom de net.

Why would I need a new nom de net?

Anyway, I find this post funny. In the original post, Matthew said that "In particular, a bipartisan, yet also non-partisan, group of experts would be a useful thing to have on hand ..."

And, yet, here we have an example of the media going to a bunch of far left-wing extremists like Rand Beers, and Matthew thinks that's just fine... as if Rand Beers was one of a "bipartisan, yet also non-partisan, group of experts". Please.

Posted by Al | August 23, 2007 7:27 PM

Precipitous withdrawal is a talking point. All the prominent withdrawal legisltion leaves the planning and logistics to the professional military who do things meticulously not precipitously. So why are you defaming the good logisticians in our Armed Services? Don't you support our troops? See how that works? No fun, is it?

Posted by joejoejoe | August 23, 2007 7:31 PM

DWG,

Now your just being a deliberately obtuse troll. Your questiuosn was already answered. Bush isn't being criticized simply for saying Iraq is Vietnam. he is being criticized because:

1) for 5 years he has attacked anyone who made that point.

2) he has a completely incorrect wing-nut alternate history interpretation of Vietnam, so when he says Iraq is like Vietnam he means Iraq is like his fucked up version of Vietnam, not the reality.

You know it is possible for Bush to wrong about multiple things at the same time, in fact it is pretty rare when he isn't.

Posted by Eric K | August 23, 2007 7:36 PM

By the way, I posted under Buster Bluth, as that was a reference to an excellent television program you will never watch-- Arrested Development-- because it was scripted by libtards. So there's only one of me "detracting from the discourse" here-- which is a deliciously ironic assertion coming from a Bush apologist. Bush brings down discourse like gravity brings down the Hindenburg. And comparing Iraq to Vietnam to JUSTIFY remaining in Iraq (and muffing the reference to boot, invoking a funhouse mirror Cambodia scenario) is idiotic.

You and your Retardlican friends are so beyond wrong it's positively malicious. If you were all airlifted to the Sunni Triangle tomorrow, it would be a day too late. I seriously hope you and people who think like you are recognized in your daily lives as the stubborn, willfully ignorant, armchair tough guys you are. The emperor has no clothes, and his followers have no shame.

Posted by Gregorio | August 23, 2007 7:39 PM

A rapid withdrawal from Iraq would result . . .

There's a typo in there--surely you meant to say: "A rapid invasion of Iraq would result . . .

Fixed, it makes much more sense, particularly if you said in in '03 . . .

Posted by rea | August 23, 2007 7:40 PM

Support the Troops, DAMMIT. Time to CUT AND RUN:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=5a8349a0e944e61b&ex=1345176000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Posted by Gregorio | August 23, 2007 7:42 PM

Here are what some Army Wives think about supporting the troops. The part after 6:56 is particulary rich.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13890448

Joejoejoe - prominent withdrawal legislation I can handle. "Bring the Troops Home Now" is ridiculous.

Eric K - I merely pointed out that Bush never said our mistake in Vietnam was pulling out too soon. That viewpoint is an oversimplified manifestation of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

BTW - I have listened to Bill Clinton and George Bush speak within the last 8 months or so. Clinton did a much better job but Bush did better than most. He had a few "applause points" that didn't get any applause but overall it was pretty effective.

Posted by danceswithgoats | August 23, 2007 8:09 PM

While many people are speculating that Dumbya is preparing to go to war with Iraq, this latest wackjob speech makes me wonder if he's going to order some sort of surprise bombing of Vietnam, just to keep everyone guessing.

Of course if he did that he'd probably lose a few of his diehard supporters, but I'm guessing he wouldn't lose very many of them. That last 25% seems to be as divorced from reality as he is.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 23, 2007 8:49 PM

I was going to respond to your earlier post, but now that I see you refer to "Bush Derangement Syndrome," I see that you're not really a serious person. Enjoy batting around the talking points with those who have nothing better to do.

Posted by Steve | August 23, 2007 8:51 PM

Steve,

Ah, come on. Give me a shot. I was being demeaned by those other guys and I slipped. What have you got? I should have never sunk to their level.

Posted by danceswithgoats | August 23, 2007 9:37 PM

"Ah, come on. Give me a shot. I was being demeaned by those other guys and I slipped. What have you got? I should have never sunk to their level."

You brought it on yourself by being deliberately stupid. People answered your question and you ignored it and then offered a silly reading of the speech. Of course people are going to mock you. Just tell us, are you evil or stupid?

Posted by Reality Man | August 23, 2007 11:59 PM

Of course if he did that he'd probably lose a few of his diehard supporters, but I'm guessing he wouldn't lose very many of them. That last 25% seems to be as divorced from reality as he is.Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus

The great Lefty pretension right now is that they attempt to equate Bush's low popularity over matters like Iraq, mismanaging Iraq, his Open Borders policy, his shitty domestic programs, working with Teddy Kennedy - a blend of pissed off people from across the poitical spectrum:

With that somehow "signifying" 75% of Americans support a US defeat in Iraq, a destabilized region, an Al Qaeda victory.

Of course the Lefty propagandists say that conditions will rapidly stabilize in short order, that a strategic withdrawal to Okinowa is not a retreat and defeat but a "repositioning". And, of course, that there is no real AQ threat in Iraq - the "Real Threat" is the 4-5 leaders "WHO ATTACKED US" hiding in caves in Pakistan who if only can be captured and given ACLU defense teams - will end the threat!

That AQ fighter have "attacked us!!" in Iraq, killing about 800 US soldiers is not on any Lefty radar screen. Nor the 10's of thousands of Iraqis AQ has butchered - to the Left, it is unfair to blame them for their car bombs, executions - when that detracts from blaming the US for "murdering" those civilians because the Don't Call them AQ!! freedom fighters would not be car bombing and executing if we only had gone in with UN Legitimacy!!

It's quite funny now to see the Dem Presidential candidates slowly realized they can't spout that Lefty crap to the American people and remain a viable candidate, unless you consider Kuchinich a viable candidate. Or relish the articulate Obama trying to tongue-lash his way out of another foreign policy fiasco he talked his way into pandering to Nutroots Folks.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 24, 2007 12:56 AM

To be blunt, the vast majority of Americans, journalists and media pundits don't need anyone, let alone a clerisy, to know that Vietnam revisionism is a load of crap. That stuff just won't fly.

Posted by Jimm | August 24, 2007 1:08 AM

What's wrong with using the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome"? Just because Krauthammer coined the term doesn't mean the affliction itself is not real. What I find odd about it is that most liberal bloggers themselves seem to be relatively immune, but it's awful rampant among their commentariat.

Posted by artappraiser | August 24, 2007 3:13 AM

What's wrong with using the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome"?

It might have something to with the majority of the folks deploying that pejorative being of the persuasion that still works themselves into a froth over the mention of a Prez who's been OOF for nearly a decade. Patients running the asylum, and all that.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | August 24, 2007 7:53 AM

somehow "signifying" 75% of Americans support a US defeat in Iraq, a destabilized region, an Al Qaeda victory.

It's not a question of people "supporting" a US defeat--defeat is not somthing we get to vote on. You people started a foolish, unnecessary war, and lost it. If you don't like the consequences of defeat--well, you should have thought of that before starting the war.

The issue before us now is not how to win the war (too late to worry about that), but how to salvage something from the wreckage.

Posted by rea | August 24, 2007 8:16 AM

"...And, yet, here we have an example of the media going to a bunch of far left-wing extremists like Rand Beers..."

Al, you are demented beyond all hope of recovery. Rand Beers was on the NSC of Presidents Reagan and Bush I. He is not a far left extremist. I suppose John Warner is now a far left extremist too.

Posted by Njorl | August 24, 2007 9:23 AM

So, Ilan Goldberg somehow thinks that after being openly supportive or stone-cold silent about this Administration's mishandling of Iraq for about half a decade...the "clerisy" have redeemed themselves because they called bullshit on President Bush's bullshit Vietnam-Iraq analogy?

As someone has already pointed out, we don't need a "clerisy" to state the obvious. If we need a "clerisy" at all, it's to stand up against idiotic foreign policy decisions WHEN THERE'S STILL TIME TO CHANGE THEM.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | August 24, 2007 10:05 AM

I think it's ultimately fairest to say that the frustration from bloggy-land is that the idiots who got us into the Iraq war still have careers, and we keep seeing them and hearing from them on TV and wherever else. Meanwhile, people who weren't stupid about Iraq are forced to build their own think tanks from scratch and end up marginalized.

The truth of the matter here is that the war was a Bush administration policy from the get-go, and no amount of criticism (factual or otherwise) was going to change it. The intelligence was always going to be stacked in the favor of policy, and the reason the thinktanky clerics (or whatever euphemism you want) got used so badly is that they thought the policy was up for debate. They used their mighty think-y powers to evaluate for a policy decision, when in fact, the policy was decided already. Some of them caught on that this was the case, and played along with the game, and this list of names is quite well known.

So as we move towards immanetizing our nation's policy of war with Iraq, this is what we should keep in mind: The policy is already set, the war itself has already started, and the intel will only ever support the policy of war. And that's just how it is. There will be a war, if it's at all possible.

So go home to your think tanks, and talk about whether you want to support the policy or not, because everything you say will be criticized and someone will hate you for it, so you might as well be on the side of goodness and light.

Posted by Enoch Root | August 24, 2007 6:22 PM

Dances... writes: "The main part was about the transition of Japan and Korea into thriving economies/democracies."

The Japan comparison is especially ill-informed. Japan had a homogeneous society that was not in a civil war. In addition, there were years of post-war planning for Japan.

Posted by Steve J. | August 25, 2007 11:50 PM