Why undermine the historical arguments about Iraq with the specter of the Vietnam quagmire, especially after the president had gone out of his way several months ago to reject critics' charges that Iraq was turning into just that?
So asks Time magazine and it is a really good question. Bush now seems to be selling Iraq as another Vietnam. Now I understand that Bush probably doesn't know much about Vietnam, except that he didn't want to go there, but even today, decades later, it is not a war that most Americans look back on fondly.
Of course, the Conservatives have been saying for some time that we cannot lose in Iraq unless we leave. So Iraq is just like Vietnam except that we're never leaving? Bush clearly sees the Iraq war as just a marketing problem but repackaging it as Vietnam just will not help him.
