TPM Reader RF on George W. Bush finally showing up in Vietnam …
Reading the news accounts of Bush’s visit to Vietnam–and having studied the conflict and culture my whole life, and speaking the language, two things leaped to mind:
1) The incident is certainly a measure of the nerve or rather stupidity of George W. Bush. To invert historical reality while actually standing on Vietnamese soil is an irony, perhaps an obscenity, but it hardly shows even the minimal respect expected of the rudest guest. I’m sure Bush was oblivious to any reaaction by his hosts–and I’m equally sure their reaction wasn’t obvious, either.
It was intended to maintain the always-erroneous claim that Congress “lost” Vietnam by reducing funding, or criticizing the military, or losing it’s political will. None of that’s true.
2) I wonder just how much the Vietnamese were taking Bush for at the bargaining table. Vietnam is on the cusp of becoming the next Asian “Tiger” (how quickly is the question) and they have much to offer. Bush needs to add to his “Coalition” of Palau, Micronesia, England (all island nations, hmm). While they won’t join–I believe they offered 500 tons (lbs?) of rice in response for Bush’s appeal for more coalition allies & support (along with snarky public statement)– they are capable of extracting resources from Bush.
Like I said earlier, we’re deep down in the primitive brain stem here.
This could get rather interesting. The decision on who won the race to represent Florida’s 13th Congressional District could wind up in the House itself.
Been there, done that?
November 2006: “President Bush said Monday that he has made no decisions about altering the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, and he refused to discuss the pros and cons that would accompany such a decision.”
August 2005: President Bush said Thursday no decision has been made on increasing or decreasing U.S. troop levels in Iraq, saying that as “Iraqis stand up, we will stand down” and that only conditions on the ground will dictate when it is time for a reduction in U.S. forces.
April 2004: “Gen. John P. Abizaid, the senior commander in the Middle East, has asked for contingency plans for increasing the number of troops in Iraq. No decision has been made to supplement the 134,000 troops now there, and White House officials said it was unclear whether such a move would help the situation.”
November 2003: “The President is going to do what is most effective in Iraq, and he gets recommendations from his commanders on troop levels and what is needed. No decisions have been made about future troops levels,” said National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice.
Don’t feel like the Iraq War proponents who have finally turned against the war are being beat up enough for their hypocrisy? Then go read as Ken Silverstein pounds Ken Adelman into pulp. In a dignified Harper’s kind of way, of course.
CQ: House Ethics Committee investigation of the Mark Foley matter “may end with a whimper, not a bang”–but not until mid-December.
House Democrats to serve up ethics reform a la carte. (“I’d like the lobbyist gift ban — no earmark transparency, thank you.”) That and other news of the day in today’s Daily Muck.
Another Gemayel assassinated in Lebanon, this time the minister of industry Pierre Gemayel.
I don’t know why I have such a clear memory of when his uncle, Bashir, was assassinated in 1982 before taking office as Lebanon’s newly elected president. Maybe it was because it was the same day Grace Kelly died in Monaco. A strange association. All hell broke loose in Lebanon shortly thereafter, and things are similarly tenuous there now.