[.cnI redruM]

Why is he back in Vietnam? Two possibilities.

1) Too much LDS back in his misspent youth. 2) Recent gestures on the part of VN to include, reduced harassment of CHristians, the return of US Servicemember remains, easing travel restrictions and the donation of 1/2 a million tons of rice to Iraq has led the US to improve relations with a former enemy.

[Pikamax]

Thats not the whole column. there is a second page with this goofy ending "In-bed embeds are yesterday's news. It's only a matter of time before more dissenting troops talk to a reporter with a camera — and in TV news, time moves faster now, via satellite phones, than it did in the era when a network report had to wait for the processing of film or the shipping of video. At the tender age of six months, the war in Iraq is not remotely a Vietnam. But from the way the administration tries to manage the news against all reality, even that irrevocable reality encased in flag-draped coffins, you can only wonder if it might yet persuade the audience at home that we're mired in another Tet after all. " http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/arts/26RICH.html?pagewanted=2&th

[tcostell]

The thing I don't get is that ever since the last Democratic president was convicted of lying the only thing you can seem to get a democrat to say is that the current Republican president is lying too. They can't provide any evidence of it, but they keep saying it as if they believe that saying it alone was the only thing that made it true with the last president.

I get the impression that they believe that there is no difference between substance and spin. Or at least that they would like us all to believe that. But in strictly technical terms I wouldn't be at all surprised if such willful delusion could be described as mental illness on the part of the left.

And why this war is Vietnam and the last 2 weren't is just another example of intentionally irrational thought.

[Restorer]

Six months later, the audience is getting restless. The mission is not accomplished. The casualty list cannot be censored.

So lets examine Mr. Rich's idea of how wars should be fought.

1. They're always over in less than six months.

2. Exactly what you are going to do and how you are going to do it is perfectly obvious to everybody.

3. Nobody gets killed. (At least not on your side.)

[forktail]

I am starting to feel bad for the Left. I mean it. The slow constant tug they have had on America since the late 40s (when they dug their feet in and starting really pulling) is slowing. The rope isn't about to break, the Right is simply remembering that they are in a tug-O-war and have begun to pull back.

The Left's sound bites are pathetic. They have no rudder, no compass, no oar. They are adrift in a sea of hopelessness. They have no point anymore. Communism failed. All they can do is watch as we dismantle their idiotic failures in Education, Healthcare and Entertainment.

It has to hurt them to know that acedemia, intelligensia and LIberal are all bad words now.

[Huck]

Mr. Bush pulled the old Nixon stunt of trying to "go over the heads of the filter and speak directly to the people"

That is a rascally stunt, not talking to the major media outlets. The nerve!

[TomServo]

Already posted here.

[metalboy]

I aint got time to read this whole thing cause I`m going to work, but I`m assuming that since it`s the NYTimes and the mention of Vietnam, that they are comparing Iraq to Vietnam. Just two things; First..Vietnam was a debacle run by democrats that went on for 12 years. A REPUBLICAN named Nixon got us out of that mess, a republican who to this day is STILL blamed for Vietnam any time the word Vietnam is mention by liberals. Never will you hear the words Kennedy or Johnson cross the lips of Hanoi Jane Fonda when she screams out of that commie mouth of hers. Nixon, a Republican who brought the North to the table by bombing the crap out of them, but he had to do so in secret because of the LIBERALS who STILL didn`t want us to, who STILL wanted our guys to get put through a meat grinder right out of high school. Second... Iraq was how long? 3 months, if that? Something Vietnam probably would have been had Nixon been elected in the first place when it started! And what are we doing now in Iraq? We are making sure ANARCHY doesn`t reign, which I am sure liberals would have no problem endorsing being that they constantly are now screaming for us to get out of there.

[SunStar]

Why Are We Back in Vietnam?

We're not, you lying sack of excrement.

[91B]

Why is he back in Vietnam? Two possibilities.

1) Too much LDS back in his misspent youth...

Hey, leave the Mormons out of this :-)