Comments on: But has he read the book? http://sodsbrood.com/pilgrim/2007/08/23/but-has-he-read-the-book Comeday morm and, O, you're vine! Sendday's eve and, ah, you're vinegar! Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:17:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: greypilgrim http://sodsbrood.com/pilgrim/2007/08/23/but-has-he-read-the-book/comment-page-1#comment-71224 greypilgrim Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:53:44 +0000 http://sodsbrood.com/pilgrim/2007/08/23/but-has-he-read-the-book#comment-71224 Context really doesn't help much. He is using Greene as a symbol of a certain mindset of the time which believed that it was the American presence in Indochina that was the problem. Bush apparently thinks Greene was mistaken, but personally, knowing what I know about Greene's experience in foreign affairs (he was a spy for MI6, remember), not to mention his intelligence, I think I'd trust Greene's opinion over the President of the United States. There are other things I find really offensive about his speech. Offensive because of the blatant manipulation of history. He links the Khmer Rouge atrocities in Cambodia to the American withdraw from Vietnam, when in fact the two had nothing to do with each other. Quoting from a Boston Globe analysis of the speech: "Melvin Laird, secretary of defense under President Nixon from 1969 to 1973, said Bush is drawing the wrong lessons from history. "'I don't think what happened in Cambodia after the war has anything to do with Iraq,' Laird said. 'Is he saying we should have invaded Cambodia? That's what we would have had to do, and we would have never done that. I don't see how he draws the parallel.'" Context really doesn’t help much. He is using Greene as a symbol of a certain mindset of the time which believed that it was the American presence in Indochina that was the problem. Bush apparently thinks Greene was mistaken, but personally, knowing what I know about Greene’s experience in foreign affairs (he was a spy for MI6, remember), not to mention his intelligence, I think I’d trust Greene’s opinion over the President of the United States.

There are other things I find really offensive about his speech. Offensive because of the blatant manipulation of history. He links the Khmer Rouge atrocities in Cambodia to the American withdraw from Vietnam, when in fact the two had nothing to do with each other. Quoting from a Boston Globe analysis of the speech:

“Melvin Laird, secretary of defense under President Nixon from 1969 to 1973, said Bush is drawing the wrong lessons from history.

“‘I don’t think what happened in Cambodia after the war has anything to do with Iraq,’ Laird said. ‘Is he saying we should have invaded Cambodia? That’s what we would have had to do, and we would have never done that. I don’t see how he draws the parallel.’”

]]> By: Todd http://sodsbrood.com/pilgrim/2007/08/23/but-has-he-read-the-book/comment-page-1#comment-71160 Todd Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:33:24 +0000 http://sodsbrood.com/pilgrim/2007/08/23/but-has-he-read-the-book#comment-71160 I don't get it either, though more context might help. . .It does seem like any Republican linking of Iraq to Vietnam either nuts, or an act of desperation. We all know what 'Nam symbolizes in the American psyche. I don’t get it either, though more context might help. . .It does seem like any Republican linking of Iraq to Vietnam either nuts, or an act of desperation. We all know what ‘Nam symbolizes in the American psyche.

]]> By: Grady http://sodsbrood.com/pilgrim/2007/08/23/but-has-he-read-the-book/comment-page-1#comment-71133 Grady Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:55:51 +0000 http://sodsbrood.com/pilgrim/2007/08/23/but-has-he-read-the-book#comment-71133 I just read and posted on your 'Mr. Gray' series, but this is the post the brought me to your blog. The Greene reference did seem really strange. Your explanation makes as much sense as any I've seen. I just read and posted on your ‘Mr. Gray’ series, but this is the post the brought me to your blog. The Greene reference did seem really strange. Your explanation makes as much sense as any I’ve seen.

]]>