Keith Olbermann on Iraq, Vietnam and Bush

Keith Olbermann delivered one of his special comments last night. He responded with such clarity to the spectacle of Bush in Vietnam, comparing it to Iraq.

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 listen to a man talk unrealistically about Vietnam, 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.

Olbermann continued:

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 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.
<!-more-> Olbermann went on to enumerate some lessons for Mr. Bush which included:

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 Vietnamese Presidents Diem or Thieu.

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 small 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.

Wait! The same man who advised Nixon on Vietnam, is advising Mr. Bush now? A man who was responsible for continuining the quagmire of Vietnam while tens of thousands of more American troops died? Who denied there was a problem until pushed into ending the war because of the protest of people all over the country, including the testimony of one young lieutenant before the Senate Foreign Relations committee in 1971?

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn’t have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can’t say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won’t be, and these are his words, “the first President to lose a war.”

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

 

How many times do we have to learn this lesson?  How many lives do we have to spend before it really sinks in?

 

11 Comments

New comments for this entry are closed.

Keith Olbermann gets it right again; Bush has utterly and completely lost touch with reality - what little he had, that is.
It is unfortunate that his misguided notions are turning out to be so costly. We cannot afford another president who would rather sacrifice thousands of lives before he admits defeat.
Yet here we are - deja vu. History is repeating itself, and many of the familiar players are present again, helping to shape the course.

Posted by Kerstin | 11/21/06, 07:16 AM EST

Keith Olberman’s comments on this are awsome. I was a college student during the late 60s and early 70s. Iraq is looking more and more like Vietnam. Senator Kerry has put it as plainly as possible when he speaks of half the names on the Vietnam Wall being people who died after the leaders knew the policy couldn’t work - and then links it to Iraq today.

Posted by Karynnj | 11/21/06, 07:39 AM EST

Of course the blog post above does link to the video on the MSNBC site which also has the complete transcript.

Posted by Violet | 11/21/06, 08:51 AM EST

Richard Cohen who is not someone I normally find myself agreeing with has an interesting column today about Bush in Vietnam and the parallels with Iraq which concludes

My dauntingly knowledgeable Post colleague Thomas E. Ricks reports from the Pentagon that the military is now considering three options for Iraq: more troops, fewer troops (but for a longer time) and no troops at all—the ol’ cut and run. The missing option here is victory. Don’t worry, it will be invented. “You have to define win,” Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who is about to return to Iraq, told the New York Times. Ah, just in the nick of time.

Where have we heard this sort of language before? It is the lingo of Vietnam. As with Vietnam, we are fighting now merely not to lose—to avoid a full-fledged civil war (it’s coming anyway) or to keep the country together, something like that. But not for victory. Not for democracy. All this talk of the Iraqis doing more on their own behalf is Vietnamization in the desert rather than the jungle. What remains the same is asking soldiers to die for a reason that the politicians in Washington can no longer explain. This, above all, is how Iraq is like Vietnam: older men asking younger men to die while they try to figure something out.

That’s why Bush kept moving. He knows Vietnam is not just about the past. It’s also about the future.

Posted by Violet | 11/21/06, 08:52 AM EST

Senator Kerry,

I am sorry I missed you in Chesapeake (just one town over from me), as I didn’t know about the event.  Anyway, in addition to the nice article in the Virginian-Pilot, two local bloggers were there.  Here are their posts:

http://vivianpaige.wordpress.com/2006/11/21/spruill-roast/#more-1007

A couple of quotes:

All were waiting for the arrival of the featured speaker, Senator John Kerry. Around 7:15pm, Kerry arrived.

Kerry spent about ten minutes moving thru the room, shaking hands and speaking to people. I got a chance to chat with him as well. First impression: golly, that man is tall! As I was one of the few folks with a camera, I had several requests for photos, which I was happy to take.

snip

Spruill took the ribbing good naturedly and then introduced Kerry. Kerry took the microphone to thunderous applause. After echoing the story of how he and Spruill met, he spoke briefly about the Democratic agenda for the next two years, touching on such issues as Iraq. I got the distinct impression that Kerry is going to put forth a full effort to obtain the presidential nomination.

And from Sean who heads the Young Democrats in the area:

http://vbdems.blogspot.com/2006/11/del-spruill-dinner-in-chesapeake.html

He was happy you came to our area instead of NoVa, and was impressed with your speech.

Posted by beachmom | 11/21/06, 10:27 AM EST

I think Bush wanted to be a president like every Republican’s hero, Ronald Reagan. Instead he’s another Richard Nixon--stuck in a quagmire and violating laws left and right in order to hang onto power.

Posted by GinnyinWI | 11/21/06, 11:58 AM EST

As I noted in a followup comment to the Washington Post article by Richard Cohen that Violet quoted above:

To paraphrase a young man who later grew up to be a statesman-senator:

How do you ask someone to be the last person to die in Iraq?

How do you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake?

Posted by Otter | 11/21/06, 01:02 PM EST

Hmmm, well Olbermann was awesome. As always.

Posted by Pamela Leavey | 11/21/06, 02:32 PM EST

Terrific post! Keith Olbermann is a treasure. Given the current cast of manipulators, Olbermann’s commentary together with Senator Kerry’s historic speech spotlights the surreal deja vu of this entire episode!

Also, take a gander at Gates (sorry couldn’t help myself):

Has Gates learned his lesson?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-glaudemans21nov21,0,5803026.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Posted by ProSense | 11/21/06, 03:21 PM EST

I am surprised that the president chose to go to Vietnam at a time like this when so many Americans are unhappy about his leadership on this war. So many of us voted for democrats to see a change in strategy. Even Kissinger thinks we can’t win militarily but is against withdrawal of troops.

We’ve been told that the Iraq Study Group will give the president cover to move away from ‘stay the course’. Now people are openly asking if Iraq is the new Vietnam. It seems likely to me that they will not recommend withdrawing troops but will suggest a “go long” approach where Bush will send 20,000 more troops to Iraq. Bush will stick to plans of staying in Iraq till 2010.

Also I don’t think Bush has any intention of engaging in real diplomacy with Iran or Syria if the group actually pushes for this in their recommendations. It is also an embarrassment that the president of Iraq has agreed to go to Syria for talks without any participation from America. Iraq has also agreed to go to Iran for diplomatic talks. Where is the US presence in all this? Despite saying that he wants to work with Congress on the Iraq war Mr. Bush has no intention of changing course.

Posted by Probus | 11/21/06, 11:46 PM EST

I have a quote from one of my favorite songs that goes great with this post. “Living in the house of pain and Bush won’t apologize”

Posted by Nick | 11/22/06, 03:55 PM EST
Join JohnKerry.com
Contribute
Help us fight for a new direction for our country. Make a contribution today.
Contribute
Volunteer

Imagine what we can accomplish together.


Email volunteer@johnkerry.com and tell Terri you want to volunteer!

Recent News
Recent Blog Posts