From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
keith schools Bush on Vietnam
Published on November 21, 2006 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In Current Events
If I tried to write an article on this subject, i'd only end up plagarizing Keith, so i'll just let his words stand...


OLBERMANN: And now as promised the special comment about the president‘s visit to Vietnam. It is a shame and it is embarrassing to us all when President Bush travels 8,000 miles only to wind up avoiding reality again. And it is pathetic to hear the leader of the free world talk so unrealistically about Vietnam, when it was he who permitted the Swift Boating of not one, but two American heroes of that war in consecutive presidential campaigns.

But most importantly, important beyond measure, his avoidance of reality is going to wind up killing more Americans and that is indefensible and fatal. Asked if there were lessons about Iraq to be found in our experience in Vietnam. Mr. Bush said that there were and he immediately proved that he had no clue what they were. One lesson is, he said, that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world and the task in Iraq is going to take a while. We‘ll succeed, the president concluded, unless we quit. If that‘s the lesson about Iraq that Mr. Bush sees in Vietnam then he needs a tutor or we need somebody else making the decisions about Iraq.

Mr. Bush, there are a dozen central lessons to be derived from our nightmare in Vietnam, but we‘ll succeed unless we quit is not one of them. The primary one, which should be as obvious to you as the latest opinion poll showing that only 31 percent of this country agrees with your tragic Iraq policy, is that if you try to pursue a war for which the nation has lost its stomach, you and it are finished, ask Lyndon Johnson.

The second most important lesson of Vietnam, Mr. Bush, if you don‘t have a stable local government to work with, you can keep sending in Americans until hell freezes over and it will not matter. Ask south Vietnam‘s president Diem, or President Tue (ph).

The third vital lesson of Vietnam, Mr. Bush, don‘t pretend it‘s something it‘s not. For decades we were warned that if we didn‘t stop communist aggression in Vietnam, communist agitators would infiltrate and devour the smaller nations of the world and make their insidious way, stealthily, to our doorstep. The war machine of 1968 had this domino theory. Your war machine of 2006 has this nonsense about Iraq as the central front in the war on terror.

The fourth pivotal lesson of Vietnam, Mr. Bush, if the same idiots who told Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon to stay there for the sake of peace with honor are now telling you to stay in Iraq, they‘re probably just as wrong now as they were then, Dr. Kissinger.

And the fifth crucial lesson of Vietnam, Mr. Bush, which somebody should have told you about long before you plunged this country into Iraq is that if you lie us into a war, your war and your presidency will be consigned to the strap heap of history. Consider your fellow Texans sir, after president Kennedy‘s assassination, Lyndon Johnson held the country together after a national tragedy, not unlike you tried to do. He had lofty goals. He tried to reshape society for the better and he is remembered for Vietnam and for the lies he and his government told to get us there and keep us there and for the Americans who needlessly died there. As you Mr. Bush will be remembered for Iraq and for the lies you and your government told to get us there and keep us there and for the Americans who needlessly died there and who will needlessly die there tomorrow.

This president has his fictitious Iraqi W.M.D. and his lies, disguised as subtle hints, linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11, and his reason of the week for keeping us there, when all of the evidence has, for at least three years, told us we needed to get as many of our kids out as quickly as we could. That president had his fictitious attacks on Navy ships in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 and the next thing any of us knew, the Senate had voted 88-2 to approve the blank check with which Lyndon Johnson paid for our trip into hell.

And yet President Bush just saw the grim reminders of that trip into hell. Of the 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese killed, of the 10,000 civilians there who have been blown up by land mines since we pulled out, of the genocide in the neighboring country of Cambodia, which we triggered. Yet these parallels and these lessons eluded President Bush entirely, and in particular, the one over-arching lesson about Iraq that should have been written everywhere he looked in Vietnam went unseen. We‘ll succeed unless we quit. Mr. Bush, we did quit in Vietnam, a decade later than we should have, 58,000 dead later than we should have, but we finally came to our senses that stable burgeoning vivid country you just saw there is there because we finally had the good sense to declare victory and get out.

The domino theory was nonsense, sir. Our departure from Vietnam emboldened no one. Communism did not spread like a contagion around the world and most importantly, as president Reagan‘s assistant secretary of state Lawrence Korb said on this newscast on Friday, we were only in a position to win the Cold War because we quit in Vietnam. We went home and instead it was the Russians, who learned nothing from Vietnam, and who repeated every one of our mistakes when they went into Afghanistan and alienated their own people and killed their own children and bankrupted their own economy and allowed us to win the Cold War. We awakened so late, but we did awaken.

Finally in Vietnam we learned the lesson. We stopped endlessly squandering lives and treasure and the focus of a nation on an impossible and an irrelevant dream, but you are still doing exactly that tonight in Iraq and these lessons from Vietnam, Mr. Bush, these priceless, transparent lessons, written large, as if across the very sky, are still a mystery to you. We‘ll succeed unless we quit. No, sir, we will succeed against terrorism for our country‘s needs towards binding up the nation‘s wounds when you quit, quit the monumental lie that is our presence in Iraq. And in the interim, Mr. Bush, an American kid will be killed there probably tonight or, if we are lucky, not until tomorrow. And here, sir, endeth the lesson.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 21, 2006
eh, i hesitate to risk my newfound privilege of again being able to comment on your blog, but how is this fearless? It's about as fearless as press who joined the feeding frenzy when Clinton lost the congress. Murtha, however how much I hate him, was a lot more fearless saying this when he was in smallest minority, right?

K.O. saying this now is more of a "hell yeah" isn't it, given that anyone who believes such has already said it more than once. Fearless is saying something when everyone will be at your throat for it. This is more like falling in line with the mob.
on Nov 21, 2006
i understand what you are saying baker, but bush only made the comments last week, so "jumping on him" before that before the comments were made would be kinda impossible.
on Nov 21, 2006
and btw,,,i released the b.l. on ya a while ago when we were both commenting on the post with the kool-aid swallowin christians. i didn't think it fair to exclude you when we were commenting on the same posts defending sim. things.
on Nov 21, 2006
YOu have to admit that K.O. has ratcheted up his rhetoric of late, though. You aren't so blind as to think that people won't adjust their dog and pony shows to match the "mandate" they feel the war received. Like I said, I didn't see K.O. doing the Murtha thing or making those kinds of characterizations, at least that blatantly, before the election.

P.S. Thanks for taking me off the blacklist. We differ, so what. We agree on more than we differ about.

P.P.S You're still not a libertarian, you pinko.
on Nov 22, 2006
Keith is good isn't he, and Bill, king of hyprocracy, I can't believe I bought a book from that guy, O'reilly, said MSNBC would never be able to give Fox News a run for it's money. Well get ready because the news coming from MSNBC gets closer to mainstream daily, and Fox News, just seems like, old news, now a days.
on Nov 22, 2006
"Keith is good isn't he, and Bill, king of hyprocracy, I can't believe I bought a book from that guy, O'reilly, said MSNBC would never be able to give Fox News a run for it's money."


You can't seriously be pretending that either one of them aren't hypocrites. They aren't journalists, they are performers, playing for their market. K.O. is going to shift however he feels is most advantageous, just like Bill O'reilly does.

"Well get ready because the news coming from MSNBC gets closer to mainstream daily, and Fox News, just seems like, old news, now a days."


Closer to mainstream? LOL, listen to what you are saying. Look out Fox news, you aren't giving people the slant that the average person wants. Now MSNBC is going to spin the news the way MAINSTREAM American wants it spun.

Maybe, just maybe, we need to get fekkers like K.O. and B.O. back in their 5 minute 'andy rooney' rant slot, and let real journalists report on real news for a change. Right now it is the opposite on BOTH networks.
on Nov 22, 2006




YOu have to admit that K.O. has ratcheted up his rhetoric of late, though


keith is keith. he's a social liberal, but i wouldn't call him an all around one. his rhetoric is sharp, but he doesn't lie and make things up. and when he is in error, he is usually pretty good about it. my biggest beef with his show is the time he wastes going after tom cruise and such...i usually turn the channel round then.

P.S. Thanks for taking me off the blacklist. We differ, so what. We agree on more than we differ about.


you are welcome:)

P.P.S You're still not a libertarian, you pinko.


let's not go there, ok? best we agree to disagree.
on Nov 22, 2006
You are right about the two of them representing and catering to their audiences. I personally like Olberman best because he is more witty. O Reilly just makes you want to switch when he gets nuts.

Olberman is cool cucumber. I never really liked his show when it came on, then I went 2 years without cable, best 2 years of my life too, and finally my family decided it's a good idea to get it again, you know food network

So anyway I looked em both up again, but you are right they are both hypocritical, on different points, I despise O Reilly now because I know what he is, and that is a ratings hog, thats all he cares about, that and puffing himself up. Good grief.

On a more serious note, it's time to let real journalists do their job, and report on real news, unfortunatly I think Public television is pretty much the only way to go there, but even that is pretty awful. So for right now it's the internet for the most part for my news, and reading the paper.

Has anyone felt less of a need to know what the hell is going on since about 2004-05? or is it just me? Kinda like coming off a 4 year news junkie high since 9/11. Nothing really makes me wanna pay too much more attention. Especially with the war going how it is.

Anybody else out there feel like that too?
on Nov 23, 2006
There are no "real" reporters anymore. Every article in our paper, down to the tiddlywinks club announcements, is an editorial disguised as news. "News" is a joke.
on Nov 24, 2006
There are no "real" reporters anymore. Every article in our paper, down to the tiddlywinks club announcements, is an editorial disguised as news.


when was it different?
on Nov 25, 2006
Was it Tombstone AZ?
Maybe the Civil War coverage?
Must have been the Independece Chronicle back round the formation of our country...

No you are right "real news" is an editorial for the most part, unless you seek out the choices out there that take away the sensationalism, also their perspective. You can never remove bias, completely, but you do have more news choices now then ever before, internet, cable news, newspaper, librbary, your aunt Merth and uncle Mayberry, bottom line is there are plenty of places to get news, if it's important to you, if it is not, then it doesn't really matter.

Most people only pretend to care about the news, I'm one of em 2-3 days out of the week. Mainly because of the way Jen & Ben or TomKat get the same air time or more, then ethnic violence in Northern Ireland, Darfur, the earthquake in Hawaii, and lots of other smaller in scope evidently news stories. I don't know who it is out there that can't get enough of TOMKAT, but go watch it on E!.
on Nov 26, 2006
Looks like more people are coming to their senses regarding the lamestream media.

How comforting. Many of my sentiments echoed years later...but I digress.

Keith is quite a performer - so much so I can barely watch his self-righteous finger pointing. I can appreciate simply reading 'his' special comments, however I often wonder whom those people are that make up the small army of writers and researchers for Olberman's daily show.

Now that it has become inescapable the war in Iraq bears a much closer semblence to Vietnam then WWII, it is nice to see someone publically twisting the knife in the stomach of those who supported the bad decision to go in to Iraq for political reasons.



Here's a good example of the American media bubble at work, guess which cover we get?


A related article gives the scoop...

WWW Link
on Nov 27, 2006
I've seen that before. I didn't read the article so maybe they explain it, but why are the foreign issues of Newsweek all in English?
on Nov 27, 2006
The original source for the photograph came from Newsweek. It is my guess that their target audience overseas is dominated by readers who are fluent in English. That shouldn't be too uncommon as many foreign grammar schools begin teaching English as a second language early on.

The TESL (teaching english second language) program is one many of my professors have participated in. They will leave for a summer to go to some place like France and instruct at the collegiate level.
on Nov 27, 2006
Lol, #12 requires some blinders, huh? Like I said above about K.O., just because you preach to a different choir doesn't mean you are objective, it just means you're making a different pitch. A pro-bush slant would be that they are focusing on anti-american sentiment in nations who hate us.

I'm dubious about the photos, anyway, given that they are all in English, but regardless just because they are slanted in the other direction doesn't mean they aren't slanted.
2 Pages1 2