The best question asked during last night's news conference was:
"QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
Mr. President, millions of Americans can recall a time when leaders from both parties set this country on a mission of regime change in Vietnam. Fifty-thousand Americans died. The regime is still there in Hanoi and it hasn't harmed or threatened a single American in 30 years since the war ended.
What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?"
President Bush did not answer the question (he stayed 'on message'):
"BUSH: It's a great question.
Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.
In order to disarm, it will mean regime change. I'm confident that we'll be able to achieve that objective in a way that minimizes the loss of life.
No doubt there's risks with any military operation. I know that. But it's very clear what we intend to do. And our mission won't change. The mission is precisely what I just stated. We've got a plan that will achieve that mission should we need to send forces in."
What's a good answer to the question? Any takers?
Comments (3)
When all else fails, bring up Vietnam. What a tired and stupid argument. A more relevant comparison would be Gulf War I (same location, same combatants). It seems we did okay in that war.
Posted by Richard | March 7, 2003 4:55 PM
Posted on March 7, 2003 16:55
For what it's worth, President Bush thought it was a great question.
And, I'd read the question again. The questioner wasn't implying that we'd lose a Gulf War II... he was asking whether a Gulf War II would be worth the costs.
Posted by Partha Mazumdar | March 7, 2003 5:55 PM
Posted on March 7, 2003 17:55
Yeah, Iraq also isn't being supplied with arms or intelligence by any other world powers. Why not compare to the recent conflict in Afghanistan or the first Gulf War? I think people who cite Vietnam are just looking for any reason to oppose the war. They're asking for 100% assurances of something that cannot be proven with absolute certainty. No answer would satisfy them. I just had this same conversation with my father, who was very active in the anti-Vietnam War movement when he was in college and law school.
Posted by Dave | March 9, 2003 7:27 PM
Posted on March 9, 2003 19:27