The Department of Revisionist history (I)

So... eminent historian George W. Bush now believes that the United States should never have left Vietnam?

Am I the only person left open-mouthed at the brass of that historically ignorant, dumb sonofabitch?

Recently, the current occupant of the White House had this to say about the American withdrawal from Vietnam:

"then, as now, people argued that the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end..."

"Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left,"

"Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields,"

So... is there really a legitimate debate on how the United States became embroiled in Vietnam?

Was there really a wide-spread belief that if U.S. forces left Vietnam, that there would be no more killing? Or was the prevailing belief that if our forces remained in Vietnam, more Americans would die for nothing, militarily propping up a corrupt government, with a corrupt, weak, dispirited, ineffectual military?

Am I alone in thinking that it is rather crappy of the President to make these remarks considering his questionable military service and his refusal to serve in Vietnam?

President dumb ass is the same guy that actually had the nerve to compare the successful occupation of Japan to the failing occupation of Iraq. This guy must be getting his advice from a psychic that he found on the back of a matchbook cover.

Idiot.

GF