Oh, this is funny

[Guest Cerebus]

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Well for what is worth here is what CBS is saying at the moment.

 

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/...ain641481.shtml

 

(CBS/AP) The controversy continues over the authenticity of memos obtained by CBS News that show President Bush's National Guard commander believed Mr. Bush at times shirked his duties and used his political influence.

 

The network is adamantly defending the authenticity of the memos, which were obtained by CBS News' "60 Minutes," saying experts who examined the memos concluded they were authentic documents produced by Mr. Bush's former commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.

 

In a statement, CBS News said it stands by its story.

 

"This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking," the statement read.

 

"In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content," the statement continued. "Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned."

 

In a report on Friday night's "CBS News Evening News," Dan Rather reported that many of those raising questions about the documents have focused on something called superscript, a key that automatically types a raised "th."

 

Critics claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 1970s. But some models did, Rather reported. In fact, other Bush military records already released by the White House itself show the same superscript – including one from as far back as 1968.

 

Some analysts outside CBS say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s.

 

But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style told CBS News that it has been available since 1931.

 

Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. And he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people questioning the documents, because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced. And the documents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with.

 

Matley did an interview with "60 Minutes" prior to Wednesday's broadcast. He looked at the documents and the signatures of Col. Killian, comparing known documents with the colonel's signature on the newly discovered ones.

 

"We look basically at what's called significant or insignificant features to determine whether it's the same person or not," Matley said. "I have no problem identifying them. I would say based on our available handwriting evidence, yes, this is the same person."

 

Matley finds the signatures to be some of the most compelling evidence.

 

Reached Friday by satellite, Matley said, "Since it is represented that some of them are definitely his, then we can conclude they are his signatures."

 

Matley said he's not surprised that questions about the documents have come up.

 

"I knew going in that this was dynamite one way or the other. And I knew that potentially it could do far more potential damage to me professionally than benefit me," he said. "But we seek the truth. That's what we do. You're supposed to put yourself out, to seek the truth and take what comes from it."

 

Robert Strong was an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. He knew Jerry Killian, the man credited with writing the documents. And paper work, like these documents, was Strong's specialty. He is standing by his judgment that the documents are real.

 

"They are compatible with the way business was done at that time," Strong said. "They are compatible with the man I remember Jerry Killian being. I don't see anything in the documents that's discordant with what were the times, the situation or the people involved."

 

Killian died in 1984.

 

Strong says the highly charged political atmosphere of the National Guard at the time was perfectly represented in the new documents.

 

"It verged on outright corruption in terms of the favors that were done, the power that was traded. And it was unconscionable from a moral and ethical standpoint. It was unconscionable," Strong said.

 

The president's service record emerged as an issue during the 2000 race and again this winter. The Killian documents revived the issue of Mr. Bush's time in uniform after weeks in which Democratic challenger John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, has faced questions over his record as a Navy officer and an anti-war protester.

 

The questions about Mr. Bush's service center on how Mr. Bush got into the Guard and whether he fulfilled his duties during a period from mid-1972 to mid-1973.

 

What the Killian memos purport to show is that Mr. Bush defied a direct order to appear for a physical exam, that his performance as an officer was lacking in other ways and that Mr. Bush used family connections to try to quash any inquiry into his lapses.

 

In a separate development, the Boston Globe this week reported that Mr. Bush promised to sign up with a Boston-area unit when he left his Texas unit in 1973 to attend Harvard Business School. Mr. Bush never signed up with a Boston unit.

 

 

 

 

 

Mike, you may resume your normally scheduled liberal bashing. Cuz, we are ALL liars and Bush is the second coming making us "safer" everyday.

[Guest MikeSC]

CBS is just looking like idiots.

-=Mike

[teke184 0]

CBS is just looking like idiots.

      -=Mike

Looks like everyone can agree that Choice #4 from my post yesterday is fully in effect...

 

 

The way Rather is sticking to his position tells me one of several things is true:

 

1. The documents are true, despite all of the concerns about their legitimacy.

 

2. Dan Rather and company did NOT research the story properly

 

3. They researched the story and, despite any doubts, went forward with it because of the source who provided them

 

OR

 

4. Dan is so vain and arrogant that, if the documents are proven to be total forgeries, his ego won't allow him to fall on his sword and admit he got duped.

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't, honestly, see how CBS can justify keeping Rather on-air after this --- since HE was the one, apparently, who pushed all of this.

 

And, I sincerely hope for their sake that no Dem is behind this --- but Edwards would be wise to shut the hell up about Bush's "answering" them.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Should I even mention that the Globe misquoted Dr. Bouffard and he is a little pissed about it?

HOT UPDATE: Dr. Bouffard Speaks About Boston Globe!

 

INDC EXCLUSIVE!! MUST CREDIT INDC!!

 

I just interviewed Dr. Bouffard again, and he's angry that the Globe has misrepresented him. He's been getting hate mail and nasty phone calls since last night's story was posted, and he wants me to correct the record. He did not change his mind, and he and his colleagues are becoming more certain that these documents are forgeries.

 

Instead of providing my analysis of our conversation, I'm largely going to transcribe his unaltered quotes:

 

(I'm dynamically updating as I transcribe quotes, so keep refreshing)

 

"What the Boston Globe did now sort of pisses me off, because now I have people calling me and e-mailing me, and calling me names, saying that I changed my mind. I did not change my mind at all!"

 

"I would appreciate it if you could do whatever it takes to clear this up, through your internet site, or whatever."

 

"All I'd done is say, 'Hey I want to look into it.' Please correct that damn impression!"

 

"What I said to them was, I got new information about possible Selectric fonts and (Air Force) documents that indicated a Selectric machine could have been available, and I needed to do more anlalysis and consider it."

 

"But the more information we get and the more my colleagues look at this, we're more convinced that there are significant differences between the type of the (IBM) Composer that was available and the questionable document."

 

"The (new Selectric) typefaces sent to me invalidated the theory about the foot on the four (originally reported to INDC), but after looking at this more, there are still many more things that say this is bogus."

 

"... there are so many things that are not right; 's crossings,' 'downstrokes' ..."

 

"More things were looked into; more things about IBM options. Even if you bought special (superscripting) keys, it's not right. There are all kinds of things that say that this is not a typewriter."

 

"Any form of kerning may be critical (he hasn't rendered a definitive verdict if there is a form of kerning yet). If there is any type of kerning, it obviously isn't a typewriter or it's definitely a typeset document."

 

On the Globe and others:

 

"You talk to someone on the phone and it comes out different than you said!"

 

On the source of the 1969 Air Force Supply Memo:

 

Dr. Bouffard received an e-mail from the address of Roy Huber, a noted retired forensic analyst in Ottawa, but a response indicated that it was Lynn Huber.

 

"I presumed that it was a relative of Roy. The document said that there are fonts from the IBM that don't have the foot on the '4.'"

 

The e-mail also contained an attachment to possible Selectric fonts that indicated a "4" had a foot, and the AF Memo that indicated such a machine was a possibility.

 

But since having time to analyze the fonts of the Selectric:

 

"We've looked into more and more IBM options and ... there are all kinds of things that say this isn't a typewriter!"

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000859.php

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

You win at life.

[Guest GreatOne]

I'll just ignore GreatOne because his posts always just come down to "no I'm right you're wrong <3 Bush."

Well considering your posts go right line with the bottom quote in my sig, I think I'll be able to survive somehow without you responding to me...............

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Send my compliments to Rove for the fucking scheme of the year.

[Guest GreatOne]

Gee, glad to see you aren't BITTER or anything.

 

McAuliffe had nothing to do with 'bringing it on' yep, and in other events, Charlize Theron just announced she's flying back to rehab her neck in my bed.........................

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It benefits them to keep the subject matter on this crap instead of current events. It smells like his kind of plot. Notice how fast the conservative media picked up on everything and incubated it into an issue.

[Guest GreatOne]

Oh and Kerry didn't jump to a 12-point lead in March after the 'Bush was AWOL' campaign started, that was just a coincidence, right?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I don't remember that. Kerry started doing better around the time the VP pick rumoring started getting thick, F9/11 came out (although one can say the backlash probably hurt Kerry as much as the movie helped him), and Bush's economic policy looked terrible with Dept of Labor guidelines about overtime that was practically theft and constantly revised downwards economic growth numbers.

[Guest MikeSC]

It benefits them to keep the subject matter on this crap instead of current events. It smells like his kind of plot. Notice how fast the conservative media picked up on everything and incubated it into an issue.

Ah, Kamui is back.

 

Hi friend.

-=Mike

...Conspiracies abound!...

[Vyce 0]

C'mon, Mike, we all know they're two different people.

 

Of course, Jobber has slowly been de-evolving to Kamui-like levels these past few weeks, ever since Kerry's campaign has started faltering.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Ah, Kamui is back.

 

Hi friend.

-=Mike

...Conspiracies abound!...

You'd probably never have expected him to plant his own bug in the day, either.

 

It just seems shitty enough. It also does the damage of making people automatically suspect of military reports acquired by news organizations.

 

Regardless, I'm curious that Rather is taking one for the team in interviews. Who's he trying to protect?

[Vyce 0]

His own ego?

[Guest MikeSC]

His own ego?

It's not like CBS hasn't been all-too-willing to give anti-Bush mouthpieces plenty of airtime.

-=Mike

[teke184 0]

OT:

 

In an interview with Fox News, former ambassador Richard Holbrooke, Kerry's foreign policy advisor, has said that Iraq is a bigger mess than Vietnam.

 

I think he's going WAY down the wrong track here... If Iraq is worse than Vietnam, then Kerry would be waving a white flag by his insisted pullout instead of "winning on a timetable" as he's claimed before.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

In an interview with Fox News, former ambassador Richard Holbrooke, Kerry's foreign policy advisor, has said that Iraq is a bigger mess than Vietnam.

 

You sure that oh-so-reliable news service that you used as a source didn't do a voice-over or something?...

[teke184 0]

This isn't a video clip... it's an interview in which Holbrooke is at one Fox office (New York) and the interviewer is at another one (Washington DC).

 

Holbrooke was effectively making a rebuttal to the previous interview shown, which was with SecState Colin Powell.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout...-695873,00.html

 

So far, forensic and typewriter experts consulted by TIME and other major media organizations have not reached a consensus on the authenticity of the memos. Some insist it would have been nearly impossible for a 1970s-era typewriter to produce the memos because of the letter spacing in the documents and the use of a raised and compact th symbol. But Bill Glennon, a technology consultant in New York City who worked for IBM repairing typewriters from 1973 to 1985, says those experts "are full of crap. They just don't know." Glennon says there were IBM machines capable of producing the spacing, and a customized key — the likes of which he says were not unusual — could have created the superscript th.

 

i'm sure he's an evil liberal.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm sure he produced, you know, evidence. You know, like the others who did the overlay thing to show the truth.

-=Mike

[teke184 0]

This isn't a video clip... it's an interview in which Holbrooke is at one Fox office (New York) and the interviewer is at another one (Washington DC).

 

Holbrooke was effectively making a rebuttal to the previous interview shown, which was with SecState Colin Powell.

Here's the transcript:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132156,00.html

 

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS: This week, national security remained on center stage in the presidential campaign. One of the key questions, what would a Kerry administration do differently to defeat terrorists and stabilize Iraq?

 

For answers, we turn now to Richard Holbrooke, former ambassador to the United Nations and a top adviser to the Kerry campaign.

 

And, Ambassador Holbrooke, who's in our New York studio, welcome. Good to have you with us.

 

RICHARD HOLBROOKE, FORMER U.N. AMBASSADOR: Welcome. Good to be here, Chris.

 

WALLACE: I want to follow up on what I asked Secretary Powell. Was it a mistake to leave Afghanistan unfinished and move into Iraq?

 

HOLBROOKE: Without question.

 

WALLACE: Do you want to expand on that, sir?

 

HOLBROOKE: I think your question answers itself.

 

 

Usama bin Laden hasn't been captured. Al Qaeda is still in the field. We've just seen another threatening tape.

 

The administration claims we're safer on one hand, but on the other hand it predicts attacks by the end of this year, kind of hedging its bets.

 

And Afghanistan itself, despite what Secretary Powell just said, is not in good shape. It's deteriorating and the Taliban is advancing.

 

And the fact that, as he put it, we have 18 candidates running for president doesn't strike me as proof of progress.

 

And the really serious threat remains terrorism.

 

But most importantly, Chris, there is a double standard in this campaign. Senator Kerry is constantly being asked what his position is on Iraq, but he has been very clear on it. When he voted to support President Bush in October of 2002, he voted, as most of Congress did, to give President Bush the authority to take care of Saddam. He voted the same thing in 1998. But...

 

WALLACE: Ambassador Holbrooke, before we go into all of that, let me ask you some questions.

 

HOLBROOKE: May I just make the connection to your question? Because it's critical.

 

At that point, the president used the authority to start a war in Iraq in the wrong way at the wrong time instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan. And that's the point I wanted to underscore.

 

WALLACE: OK. Let's talk about Iraq, because a lot of people are confused, and not just in the Bush-Cheney campaign, about some of Senator Kerry's varying statements about Iraq over the last couple of years. And I want to give you, as one of his top advisers, a chance to clear that up.

 

We're going to first play a series of statements by the senator and also one by one of his opponents in the Democratic primaries. Take a look.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

 

U.S. SENATOR JOHN KERRY, D-MA: I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him and I support the fact that we did disarm him.

 

HOWARD DEAN, FORMER GOVERNOR OF VERMONT: I think this was the wrong war at the wrong time.

 

KERRY: It's the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

 

WALLACE: Ambassador Holbrooke, simple question: Does John Kerry now support the decision to take Saddam Hussein out of power or not?

 

HOLBROOKE: As I just said, Chris, twice in 1998 and 2002, John...

 

WALLACE: That's not the question I'm asking you, sir. I'm asking you, does he support the decision now to disarm and oust Saddam Hussein?

 

HOLBROOKE: Let me try to answer, Chris, and then I want to make a general comment about what I consider a very one-sided coverage of this issue. Because it's President Bush who's changed his positions much more than anyone else.

 

WALLACE: If I may, sir, I'd like to get an answer to my question. Does he support disarming Saddam Hussein or not?

 

HOLBROOKE: Senator Kerry has supported getting rid of Saddam Hussein from the beginning. But giving the authority to the president is quite different from the president taking that authority and creating a mess worse than Vietnam, which is the mess we are now in.

 

And the effort to find Senator Kerry's nanonuanced differences in his position, as opposed to the massive changes in the Bush administration's position, is quite...

 

WALLACE: Wait a minute, Mr. Ambassador. You're telling me that you think that Iraq is worse than Vietnam?

 

HOLBROOKE: Yes. It is strategically worse than Vietnam.

 

We are in a — you just heard the secretary of state avoid your very tough questions on whether there was an end in sight. I'm telling you that, given what President Bush said in his acceptance speech at the convention, the goal of the United States in Iraq is — there's no strategy for success, there is no exit strategy, there's no end in sight.

 

There are now three major parts of Iraq that are no-go areas for American and coalition troops, areas that we liberated and now they have liberated themselves from us. Millions of people are now living in areas which are sanctuaries for terrorists, Al Qaida, all sorts of people trying to kill Americans.

 

Last week, they went into the middle of Baghdad and snatched two young Italian aid workers, women right out of their offices.

 

You cannot say, Chris...

 

WALLACE: Mr. Ambassador, I don't mean to interrupt, but, you know, I do want to get some questions in here, if I might.

 

I would also point out that only a thousand Americans have died in Iraq and 50,000 died in Vietnam, so some people would put that into the equation as well.

 

But let me ask you about another seeming contradiction in Senator Kerry's positions. In August of 2003, a little more than a year ago, Kerry said, "I think we should increase it" — funding for Iraq — "by whatever billions of dollars it takes it win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq."

 

But Mr. Ambassador, this week, Senator Kerry said this.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

KERRY: $200 billion for going it alone in Iraq. That's the wrong choice. That's the wrong direction. And that's the wrong leadership for America.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

WALLACE: Does Senator Kerry still feel that we need to spend whatever it takes to be successful in Vietnam? I'm sorry — in Iraq. Now you've got me confused.

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

HOLBROOKE: Well, everyone's confused.

 

And before I answer that, I want to make clear, I respect the difference in casualty rates. We're never going to have 55,000 dead in Iraq, as we did in Vietnam.

 

 

 

But strategically and politically — and I spent three years of my life in Vietnam, Chris — strategically and politically, the situation in Iraq is worse than it ever was in Vietnam. You can't walk the streets of the cities safely; you could in Vietnam. The dangers in the region, they're worse. And everything the president said about Iraq proved not to be true.

 

Now to your question. When Senator Kerry made that comment, there had been $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction. None of us knew at the time — and we only found out a few weeks ago — that the Coalition Authority spent less than $1 billion of that money.

 

What is going on in Iraq? The situation is clearly getting worse, and there is no end in sight, and there is no strategy either for success or for victory or for exit.

 

And I think that the American public should put to the administration these critical issues. Because I'm telling you that if the Bush administration gets a second term, and based on what Secretary Powell just told you, they will certainly be in Iraq four years from today.

 

WALLACE: Senator Kerry says the key to his strategy is that he is going to bring more international partners in to help with funding, to help with troops.

 

I want to ask you about something that Kerry said just before the war. Take a look.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

KERRY: If the federal government, my friends, can find billions of dollars in order to create a coalition of the coerced and the bribed, why can't it provide vital aid for schools, health care and law enforcement in California?

 

(APPLAUSE)

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

WALLACE: Question. Does the senator consider Britain and Tony Blair to be one of the coerced, or does he consider them to be one of the bribed?

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

HOLBROOKE: Neither.

 

WALLACE: Well, he talked about a coalition of the coerced and the bribed.

 

HOLBROOKE: There are some countries in that coalition that — like Costa Rica, which pulled out this week, which doesn't even have armed forces; Palau, an island nation of about 10,000 people...

 

WALLACE: Well, was he talking about Britain?

 

HOLBROOKE: Of course not.

 

WALLACE: Was he talking about Italy?

 

HOLBROOKE: Of course not.

 

WALLACE: Was he talking about Poland?

 

HOLBROOKE: The Poles and the U.S. have a very complicated arrangement, but President Kwasniewski, whom I know quite well and talked to about this, is under tremendous pressure to get out of Iraq, and he's staying in there because of immense pressure.

 

I was in Korea shortly after Vice President Cheney went to Seoul, and the South Koreans said their arm was twisted behind their back with American pressure to participate.

 

Still, I don't question countries that sacrifice and risk the lives of people in Iraq. The issue is different. There is no success strategy, no exit strategy left for the administration's current policies in Iraq.

 

WALLACE: We have less than a minute left, Ambassador, so I'm going to give it to you to do this: Tell us what specifically Senator Kerry, President Kerry would do differently to get us out of Iraq.

 

HOLBROOKE: President Kerry, if he's elected, would have a very different situation on January 21, 2005, than he has today.

 

The situation, according to everyone I've talked to, including many people who have just been there, is continuing to deteriorate. By the time he were inaugurated, he would be facing a much more difficult situation.

 

WALLACE: Well, what would he do specifically?

 

HOLBROOKE: He would have to do a combination of three things.

 

One, he would have to sit down with the reluctant allies and the people who are not even supporting us and the United Nations and work out a more international system, so that the U.S., to use Secretary Powell's own phrase, reduced its ownership of this mess.

 

Secondly, he would have to work out, with the Iraqi leadership, whoever's in power then — and, by the way, Chris, I don't think those elections in January of next year will take place. And you'll notice that Secretary Powell did not make to you the same commitment that Rumsfeld made publicly at the National Press Club three days ago about those elections...

 

WALLACE: We're almost out of time.

 

HOLBROOKE: And finally, finally, I think that we should look at different political arrangements for Iraq which give more autonomy to the regions and the groups. Because the current situation is not going to work.

 

WALLACE: I would just point out, Ambassador, that we asked that same question about international coalitions, and he said, "It's clear, there's nothing that's going on here with France or Russia or Germany," basically that it's an empty promise.

 

HOLBROOKE: Well, I don't think that anyone expects Chirac to call up the White House next January and say, "How many divisions in Iraq?" That's not realistic, and John Kerry knows it.

 

We're talking about American national security interests, and the current situation in Iraq is a tunnel without any light at the end of it. It's (ph) a return to an ancient war in another century.

 

WALLACE: Mr. Ambassador, thank you so much. Thanks for joining us today.

 

HOLBROOKE: You're welcome.

[Justice 0]

WALLACE: If I may, sir, I'd like to get an answer to my question. Does he support disarming Saddam Hussein or not?

 

HOLBROOKE: Senator Kerry has supported getting rid of Saddam Hussein from the beginning. But giving the authority to the president is quite different from the president taking that authority and creating a mess worse than Vietnam, which is the mess we are now in.

 

And the effort to find Senator Kerry's nanonuanced differences in his position, as opposed to the massive changes in the Bush administration's position, is quite...

 

WALLACE: Wait a minute, Mr. Ambassador. You're telling me that you think that Iraq is worse than Vietnam?

 

HOLBROOKE: Yes. It is strategically worse than Vietnam.

I hope to God that Bush jumps all fucking over that all day, because that is a quote (And not even out of context) that you could toss back at him all day long and he couldn't dodge it.

[teke184 0]

WALLACE: If I may, sir, I'd like to get an answer to my question. Does he support disarming Saddam Hussein or not?

 

HOLBROOKE: Senator Kerry has supported getting rid of Saddam Hussein from the beginning. But giving the authority to the president is quite different from the president taking that authority and creating a mess worse than Vietnam, which is the mess we are now in.

 

And the effort to find Senator Kerry's nanonuanced differences in his position, as opposed to the massive changes in the Bush administration's position, is quite...

 

WALLACE: Wait a minute, Mr. Ambassador. You're telling me that you think that Iraq is worse than Vietnam?

 

HOLBROOKE: Yes. It is strategically worse than Vietnam.

I hope to God that Bush jumps all fucking over that all day, because that is a quote (And not even out of context) that you could toss back at him all day long and he couldn't dodge it.

Yeah, and people WONDERED why I claimed that position is a flip-flop...

 

 

The Kerry camp is talking about artifical deadlines to pull out of Iraq, staying the course, AND saying that Iraq is worse than Vietnam. If they had any more positions, I'd swear they were fucking contortionists...

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Because that quote, of course, reflects the entire context and tone of this interview, which was surprisingly well-conducted and responded in this hyperactive campaign season.

 

I thought we all wanted the level of discourse raised?

[Guest MikeSC]

Care to explain the lack of context for it --- since Holbrooke went into some depth with what he meant --- and it simply made clear what the comment implies?

-=Mike

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Within this interview the context makes perfect sense. Holbrooke makes a decent argument as to why Iraq is currently a strategically worse situation than Vietnam, while also acknowledging the fact that there's no way it could be considered nearly as bad in terms of American casualties. Several people have suggested that they hope Bush picks up the "Iraq is worse than Vietnam" quote, and if he does, he certainly won't be laying out all of Holbrooke's case and the many points and subpoints that follow.

 

In short: if the comment gets picked up, it'll be more of the "you took it out of context" vs. "it's plain as day" blithering that's gone back and forth on both sides (i.e., re: Kerry's many alleged flip-flops, Cheney's comment about the risk of attack w/o Bush in the White House, etc). Do we really want more of that nonsense?

[Justice 0]

Within this interview the context makes perfect sense. Holbrooke makes a decent argument as to why Iraq is currently a strategically worse situation than Vietnam, while also acknowledging the fact that there's no way it could be considered nearly as bad in terms of American casualties. Several people have suggested that they hope Bush picks up the "Iraq is worse than Vietnam" quote, and if he does, he certainly won't be laying out all of Holbrooke's case and the many points and subpoints that follow.

 

In short: if the comment gets picked up, it'll be more of the "you took it out of context" vs. "it's plain as day" blithering that's gone back and forth on both sides (i.e., re: Kerry's many alleged flip-flops, Cheney's comment about the risk of attack w/o Bush in the White House, etc). Do we really want more of that nonsense?

But, strategically, he's completely wrong is the thing, Edwin. In Vietnam, we weren't just fighting a guerilla force, we were fighting a well-equiped regular army as well. There were much more massive protests than Vietnam and the reasoning for being there and continuing to be there is much harder to justify to the public than Iraq could EVER be. Vietnam was such a strategic quagmire we would eventually have to pull out because of public opinion. Iraq is definitely not that bad, especially because the Interim Iraqi government is starting to become accepted by the people.

 

Edwin, to compare Vietnam to Iraq is moronic, plain and simple. There are superfical similarities, but any indepth comparision falls very flat very quickly. A lot of his points were hersay, really, and nothing actually substantial.

 

The criticisms of him comparing it to Vietnam are dead-on; he's just showing the Democratic tactic that has been echoed throughout the last year that Iraq is turning into a mess we can't get out of. It's why John Kerry was nominated, and the tactic deserves as much criticism as possible because of how it's trying to undermine support for the war by bringing up unfair comparisons of something that is still a touchy issue.