To: Stultis
Might be able to use that tagline...it isn’t specific to a party but the inferrence is there....
155 posted on
04/02/2007 5:05:43 PM PDT by
Bob J
To: Bob J
One way or another I think you need at least one, maybe two or three, that hammer home the Vietnam parallel.
Here's a rough idea, off the cuff. Maybe it can be rendered pithier somehow:
VIETNAM: Strategic Significance -- LOW; Consequence of Defeat -- HIGH.
IRAQ: Strategic Significance -- HIGH; Consequence of Defeat -- ASTRONOMICAL.
156 posted on
04/02/2007 5:13:31 PM PDT by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: Bob J
One way or another I think you need at least one, maybe two or three, that hammer home the Vietnam parallel.
Here's a rough idea, off the cuff. Maybe it can be rendered pithier somehow:
VIETNAM: Strategic Significance -- LOW; Consequence of Defeat -- HIGH.
IRAQ: Strategic Significance -- HIGH; Consequence of Defeat -- ASTRONOMICAL.
157 posted on
04/02/2007 5:13:33 PM PDT by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson