As Kevin Drum notes, the idiots on the Extreme Right are really starting to run with this "We Could Have Won In Vietnam" idea:
On the right: the Weekly Standard has posted not one, not two, but three separate pieces — two by idiot savant David Gelernter — that have been hauled up from the archives. Verdict: you bet your ass we could have won in Vietnam.It sounds to me like there has been a bit of coordination amongst the extremists on this issue. Drum argues that the Democrats have been too slow to respond to Bush's Vietnam statement, but I'm thinking that this might just be one of those times when no response would be best.
National Review also has three pieces on the same theme, and Peter Rodman's pretty clearly wins the Wingnut History award for the day. He's not content merely to suggest that the United States could have won in Vietnam — a trope that's common enough on the right — but claims that this is practically a "consensus" among military historians. That's chutzpah! Move along boys, nothing left to argue about here.
I think most Americans have pretty much made up their minds about Vietnam. Sure, 30% of the country would probably respond to such a bullshit argument, but only because that is probably the percentage of people who already believe that we could have won in Vietnam had we stayed the course there.
I just don't think a bunch of right-wing wackos are going to be able to change very many minds on that particular issue. After all, these are the same idiots who said -- and continue to say -- that the invasion of Iraq was a great idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment