Gergen smacks Bush on his speech: "Mr. President, how did you ever get us involved in another quagmire?"
By John Amato Wednesday Aug 22, 2007 4:30pm
David Gergen responds to Bush's speech on his rewriting of conflicts that we've fought in and clearly understands our history a little, much, incredibly, "fill in the blank"--- better than the President. We do keep records of past events. I figured I'd give him a heads up. And let's again ask President Bush why he didn't serve in Vietnam along with our co-President Cheney? Maybe they could have helped. Then again they smeared Kerry for actually fighting.
Download | play 
Download | play
GERGEN: Well, he may well have stirred a hornet's nest among historians, because there are so many differences between this struggle and what we faced in past, and I think by just invoking Vietnam, something he has tried not to do. He's tried all along to say this is not Vietnam. By invoking Vietnam he raised the automatic question, well, if you've learned so much from history, Mr. President, how did you ever get us involved in another quagmire? Why didn't you learn up front about the perils of Vietnam and what we faced there?And Vietnam and Korea, of course, were not victories for America. Korea ended in a draw and Vietnam ended in a loss. So it's surprising to me he would go back to that to make -- and I think he's going to get a lot of criticism, or a lot of critiques, that will disagree with him and point out differences
Thanks to CNN for the transcript:
COLLINS: We have heard Iraq compared to Vietnam before. But just a few minutes ago it was President Bush making the comparison this time. He invoked Vietnam to argue against pulling out of Iraq.
David Gergen served as counselor to four presidents. He's joining us this morning from Cambridge, Massachusetts.
David, it's nice to see you again.
DAVID GERGEN, FMR. ADVISER TO 4 PRESIDENTS: Thank you.
COLLINS: If you were able to listen into the president, it was kind of an interesting speech, a history lesson, different conflicts that this country has been involved in. What's your take on his comparison of the Iraq War to Vietnam?
GERGEN: Well, he may well have stirred a hornet's nest among historians, because there are so many differences between this struggle and what we faced in past, and I think by just invoking Vietnam, something he has tried not to do. He's tried all along to say this is not Vietnam. By invoking Vietnam he raised the automatic question, well, if you've learned so much from history, Mr. President, how did you ever get us involved in another quagmire? Why didn't you learn up front about the perils of Vietnam and what we faced there?
And Vietnam and Korea, of course, were not victories for America. Korea ended in a draw and Vietnam ended in a loss. So it's surprising to me he would go back to that to make -- and I think he's going to get a lot of criticism, or a lot of critiques, that will disagree with him and point out differences.
But I think the larger point of the speech was that this president is continuing to hang very tough. This is not a man who's talking about compromises. This is not a man who's talking about a plan B. This is not a man who is talking about, you know, let's reconfigure our forces in Iraq the way our Iraq Study Group did. This is a man saying, I'm hanging tough, and, by the way, what you may have heard yesterday from Maliki is not my true position; I'm still with him. Despite not only what Democrats are saying, but despite what his own ambassador has said in the last 48 hours, Mr. Crocker, who has really distanced the United States from Maliki.
COLLINS: All right, well, certainly all of this coming out in light of the report that will be expected from General Petraeus and from Ambassador Crocker coming up in September, so no question there as to why we are seeing some of these speeches. I'm sure that there will be another one or two before that September report. Buy quickly, David, I want to get back to the Vietnam issue, because I think it's something that will be talked about further today, if not tomorrow, as well.
GERGEN: Sure.
COLLINS: He did say exactly this -- we listened carefully -- he said the real problem was America's presence, and that if we would just withdraw then the killing would end. Three decades later, though, there is one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam, and that is the price of America's withdrawal paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms, like boat people, re-education camps and killing fields.
Is he not making a comparison not about why we got into the war, but about whether or not the United States should withdraw?
GERGEN: Yes, he is. And there are a couple of issues there. He's right, that initially when we pulled back in Vietnam there were massive killings. I think he's wrong to say that Cambodia only occurred because we pulled back. There are many who believed had we not have gone into Cambodia ourselves, this country might have been more stable.
But there are a couple of things about it. Everybody, including General Petraeus under his plan to let the surge diminish here in the spring, and the Iraq Study Group is to pull back off the streets, I think everybody understands that when we start doing that there are going to be a lot of killings in Iraq, too.
We're not going to stay there forever to prevent killings. When we start pulling back there is likely to be a bloodbath in Iraq, too.
But here's the other point, that if you look at Vietnam today, you have to say that Vietnam at the end, after 30 years, has actually become quite a driving country. It's a very strong economy.
So there are those who say, yes, when we pull back there were bloodbaths in the immediate aftermath, but after that the Vietnamese started putting their country together. Is that not what we want Iraq to do over the long term?
COLLINS: Yes, In fact, the president said the Iraq war will show an advance of freedom, just like that in Japan and Korea, if we're looking at the other Asian countries. Do you agree with that?
GERGEN: Well, I think that's right. But the other issue and why it's dangerous territory for him to go into Vietnam and the Vietnam analogy is reason we lost Vietnam in part was because we had no strategy. And the problem we've got now in Iraq, what is the strategy for victory? If the strategy for victory is let our troops give the Maliki government enough time to get everything solved, and the Maliki government is going nowhere, as everybody now admits, you know, what strategy are we facing? What strategy do we have to win in Iraq? It's not clear we have a winning strategy in Iraq. And that's what cost us Vietnam, and that's why we eventually withdrew under humiliating circumstances.
I do think that what the Democrats are coming around to and what many Republicans will support is some sort of gradual pullback from the cities in Iraq, but keep a significant American presence in Iraq. Not to pull a full withdrawal.
And the question becomes for the president, he talks black and white -- victory or withdrawal, Those are the two options. And Democrats and Republicans are saying, Mr. President, there is a third option here, and that is a partial pullback. Stay there, try to prevent a civil war, try to prevent al Qaeda from gaining too much ground. Is he willing to recognize that as a third option? Is he willing to bargain? today there was no indication that he as willing to do that.
COLLINS: The age-old point, I think, is even clear today. Every conflict is so vastly different, and every enemy different, too.
David Gergen, nice to talk to you.
GERGEN: Thank you so much. Take care.
Login or Register to post comments.
[Deleted. Please restrict blogwhoring to open threads]
So, our Bohemian Grover 'Gergen' plays the nice
opposition tool role.....go back to sleep.
That was the admins plan all along.
Make power and money for themselves and their close associates.
Gergen only seems to be concerned with whether or not it was a good idea for the President to make this argument. He doesn't even mention that the President got the historical facts wrong, nor the substance behind the argument - that this war was illegal, immoral, and that Bush managed it with utter incompetence.
• Detox from Fox: Starve The Beast
I like this guy. I may not always agree with him, but he sure as hell isn't afraid to speak his mind. This interview was great and he said what many of us thought.
Oh my, I just went by the tv and two stations are showing breaking news. Some chick named Lohan has been charged with seven misdemeanors. Who is she and who cares?
Meanwhile I also learned that a GOP lobbying group, close to the white house, is working for Alawi to help get Maliki overthrown so Alawi can have a shot at his position. That however wasn't deemed breaking news.
"It’s not clear we have a winning strategy in Iraq. And that’s what cost us Vietnam, and that’s why we eventually withdrew under humiliating circumstances."
It only took Gergen 6 years of Bush ass-kissing to figure this out, when it was obvious from the start. What's not clear is why anybody cares what this asshole has to say.
There once was a country so sad
So blind to the blessings it had
That pre-emptive war
Seemed to even the score
But the end result drove the world mad.
I've seen past interviews with Gergen and he isn't one hundred percent a bush supporter.
kablooie @ 7:
Very good. That sweet little ditty sums the quagmire up very nicely.
Gergen, what is that, one of them commie names. Gergen needs to get his ass out on patrol in Baghdad. Slacker, he ain't nothing but a mouth and professional presidential butt kisser.
What Gergen sees as "tough", most of us see as deranged.
Gergen is just another republican prick, who's very responsible for putting criminally insane idiots like Bush and Reagan into the White House. Now like Dr. Frankenstein, he's trying to run away from the monster he created. Nothing doing. You're stuck with him!
Godfry Daniel @ 6:
My thoughts exactly...
Hanging Touch = Stubborn/Stupid
I Am A Banana @ 14:
Gah,
Hanging TOUGH = Stubborn/Stupid
the bubble head says: "he gives a history lesson".
there's history and there's a bunch of distortions, lies and misconceptions.
I Am A Banana @ 14:
I thought this might be some kind of sexual innuendo, you being a banana.
Bush had a plan to get out of Vietnam.
hadenuf @ 17:
I know, I typo'd. I realized my error after I hit submit. Serves me right for shooting from the hip when I comment...
I guess some of them are leaving the farm.
The Vietnam comparisons that are being thrown around by the Bush administration all seem to imply that the Vietnam war could have been won. I would be interested in hearing George explain how this would have come about. If sufficient American blood were shed there by sticking to it, would that have constituted victory? Do they mean going to the nuclear option which was actually seriously suggested by the air power types? It is the blackest of humour that all those assurances before the war in Iraq started, that it could not possibly become a Vietnam,are now becoming true before our very eyes. Just like Vietnam there was no Plan B.
Gergen has been critical of Bush and his policies in the past. He doesn't do a lot of spinning. But look at this quote from Heidi Collins:
COLLINS: If you were able to listen into the president, it was kind of an interesting speech, a history lesson, different conflicts that this country has been involved in. What’s your take on his comparison of the Iraq War to Vietnam?
By now someone should have pointed out to her that at best it was distorted history. I think it surprised her that David Gergen wasn't going to completely rubber stamp Bush's speech. Collins kept trying to get him back on message, and he never really quite said what she wanted him to say.
I don't think that Gergen is the story here. I think the story is the attempt of various CNN personalities to shape the news to fit a pro administration point of view.
How many hearts would break upon hearing the news that both Bush and Cheney have terminal cancer and that they will die within a week?
Congress is there helping the President, Mr. Gergen. Ask them, the President isn't taking calls anymore.
Another example of Collin's Redirection:
Gergen: So there are those who say, yes, when we pull back there were bloodbaths in the immediate aftermath, but after that the Vietnamese started putting their country together. Is that not what we want Iraq to do over the long term?
COLLINS: Yes, In fact, the president said the Iraq war will show an advance of freedom, just like that in Japan and Korea, if we’re looking at the other Asian countries. Do you agree with that?
Gergen's point was that even though there was a bloodbath in Vietnam they pulled out of it to become a successful nation. That was the opposite of Bush's point, but Heidi didn't acknowledge that but instead brought up Japan and Korea, two countries that had nothing to do with the Iraq/Vietnam analogy. She wasn't gonna get out of this interview without validating the president's speech.
We "lost" Vietnam because the fantasy of a Vietnamese democracy in the mist of a civil war was akin to chasing the end of the rainbow.
We couldn't kill enough, bomb enough, draft enough, bribe enough, lie enough, or convince enough Vienamese to accomplish that goal.
Somebody needs to get Bush this message:
We didn't lose the Vietnam war because we left, we lost it because we went there. Failure was assured from the start.
By the tortured logic of these 'wise men' of Washington a total pullout as per Richardson would be the best way to go as that, in fact, is what we did in Vietnam and look how great they are doin' now. Nice lil' Capitalists and all....
What bullshit.
"Mr. President, how did you ever get us involved in another quagmire?"
Well one way David...he lied to Congress about WMDs! Felony!
Jenny'O @ 16:
Jenny'O @ 16:
You mean that this IS bush history?
Is that a chapter in "my pet goat"?
[...] C&L has the video and transcript. [...]
[...] House Gergen smacks Bush on his speech: “Mr. President, how did you ever get us involved in another quag... This article link is from an article posted at Crooks and Liars on Thursday, August 23, 2007 [...]
Bush obviously deserves a huge amount of criticism for what he spewed. But who the hell wrote these remarks for him to say? That person(s) also need to take a hit for distorting history so badly.
[...] Gergen smacks Bush on his speech: “Mr. President, how did you ever get us involved in another quag... This article link is from an article posted at Crooks and Liars on Thursday, August 23, 2007 [...]
How many hearts would break upon hearing the news that both Bush and Cheney have terminal cancer and that they will die within a week?
Billo will quote that tomorrow "the secular progressive far far far left anti bush crowd at crooks and liars are............... destroying america.
The answer to your question is one. Barney.
Oh, and by the way, didn't you lot use weapons of mass destruction in Vietnam.... you know........ when you dropped agent orange.
Oops, that was a close one:
"There are many who believe, had we not gone into Cambodia ourselves we wouldn't have destabilized....er....this country might have been more stable." (at about 2:48)
Newspeak at it's finest.
bob @ 33:
Well, it is true, the U.S. going into Cambodia was a huge factor. They were staying nuetral and we were using them as access along with slipping stuff through from Thailand and Laos also.
The point here is that the lesson should have been learned by the Vietnam/Cambodia/Lao bag of potato's.
Runs-With-Dog-
I'm not implying untruth. Gergen changed his statement from one of implicit responsibility to one of vagueness.
He was censoring himself, staying respectable to the powers that be.
bob @ 35:
True enough......When does Keith Olbermann come back? The chick subbing for him sucks by comparison. He would surely get all over this latest bush (lower case intentional) piece of work.
I like and respect David Gergin.......and I listen to him.He's pretty much a straight shooter...Ofcourse I don't believe everything I read and here on the idiot box....but he is worth listening too...
bush is a cocksucker @ 23:
I was hoping that the knife would slip when Cheney got his new battery. Man, I would be so elated I would probably have a heart attack and die myself. We can still dream.
How did he get us into this quagmire?...You would of thought that the Preznit would of learned something from Vietnam.....But how could he?.....he was too busy cutting and running away........on 9/11 when he got word that the country was under attack........the look on his face said it all... the nitwit is way out of his league.....It's a dark day when Big Money can dictate the national and foreign policy of this nation..it was all about money.Defense contracts......but in this case....Offense contracts........money ,money,money......theTrue repug God.
The obvious difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that we didn't invade Vietnam. We were in Vietnam at the request of South Vietnamese government. Forget for the moment that we also backed a coup d'état to over throw strongman Ngo Dinh Diem, weakening that government, and making it vulnerable to insurgency and invasion from the north.
Ho Chi Minh: "I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid."
None the less, we were invited. There is a big difference between being invited and being an invading army. Our role in in Iraq was more like the role of the North in Vietnam than the role of America in Vietnam.
Gergen discredits himself from the get go. It wasn't Bush's idea in the first place. When will they realize that we knew this all along?
So patronizing. Get off the air you lying f**k.
Baaah ... this is one of the most disgusting interviews on this site in some time...
This core corpuscle of the beast comes out and lays the line down as it is going to be...
He did not spin much???
Shake out your head gear ... or switch brands of glue..
This foul thing (Gergen) simply laid out how it is going to be... and how we have known it is going to be for a long time now...
We are not going anywhere, we will be in Iraq until the last drop of energy can be sucked out of the bowels of the earth...
He simply laid out stage 2...
Which is the kinder... gentler... in the middle of the desert empire.
Even if Fate was to smile on us and grant us the sanity of a Kucinich Presidency... Fates sweet smile would only turn into a scour right before our eyes, when they erase him from the breathing.
Wake up people...
Holy Crap! Wasn't El Presidente arrested for Cocaine Possesion during the Vietnam 'War'? What in the hell is wrong with our free and fair and balanced Corporate "News" Media? Honest to Christ, there is something terribly wrong with this country isn't there?
you guys do realize that Gergin was Special Advisor to Pres BC.....if he's good enough for BC ...then I'll give him a shot and listen to him.......just to see what he has to say.
Wing of the same bird...
I think that Shrub made the connection to Vietnam purely to change the current rhetoric from "winning the war" to "not loosing the war" in Iraq. He is obviously aware the war can't be won, though I am sure he will never admit it, but at the same time politically appealing to Americas for support so we don't loose. Look how bad we felt after loosing in Vietnam, we don't want to feel like that again type of theme. Subtle, but a shift and recognition that what they have been saying has worked.
Just when you think this little president can't sink any lower or be any stupider, he plumbs a new nadir of public humiliation. It was amusing when he played cowboy, shocking when he put on his war leader costume, but to script this boob as a scholar is such maladroit black comedy I would never have imagined even his directors could have dreamed it up. I was wrong.
not sure where people keep coming up with illegal or immoral but hey lets look at that
illegal hmmm no actually its perfectly legal, in fact Clinton had the right to go back into Iraq during his presidancy when Saddam violated the CEASE FIRE. Thats right a cease fire that means the war isnt over its only paused as long as agreed or as long as certian conditions were met. Under the conditions of the CEASE FIRE of the first Gulf War Iraq had to allow Inspections and refrain from producing WMD's wheather or not he was producing wmd's is pointless he didnt allow inspections and this was a violation of the cease fire and therefore a conclusion to the original war was warranted. Now if you want to say the original war was illegal and unwarranted fine say that, but the CONTINUATION of the first war was perfectly legal and required no aproval from congress because it was just a renewal of hostilities based on a violation.
Immoral well you may, or may not have an argument there. But i would say it isnt immoral to replace a government that has on multiple occasions proven that it does not act in the best intrest of its people. and Saddam with out a doubt didnt act in the best intrest of his people. for one example the palaces constructed Just for his use i mean how many other public works projects could have been done with that money.
Granted i believe there are reasons that the people in power do not want you to know about, for going to war with iraq but speculate on those reasons and dont make your self look like a foolish idiot by calling something its not. go back and take your civics classes again and quit parroting some ultra left communist.
The rhetoric regarding what would happen if we lost in Vietnam was not that they would follow us home, but that other countries in the region would fall to communism like Dominos, one after the other. Those Dominos would have been countries like Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines. Of course, that all just proved to be scare mongering.
They will follow us home is just an updated version of the Domino theory. No one bothers to ask just how that would happen. How would they follow us home? If they could attack us in America, they would attack us here now. They wouldn't waste time fighting heavily armed American soldiers if they could be attacking soft targets in America.
Bush should see some striking similarities. He's got the same perspective on both wars...seeing them from the comfort of the United States.
well, #2 said it first but gergen is just diving for the system. you cant take anything that comes out of the mouth of someone with his background as anything but heavily calculated propa.
This is the wind-up for the favorite pitch of tyrants- "the liberals stabbed this nation in the back".
Hitler used it and now Bushitler is preparing to try it on us. They are so proud of making their own reality, they are counting on the dumbed-down population of amurika to buy it. You know the type, their "git-r-done" base that can be operated by remote control.
Wasn't democracy great?
david gergen..this is on man that has always impressed me with his experience, his ability to call the situation without spin and mostly for his deep understanding of american politics.
There was a guy in the Bush administration who had learned some lessons from Vietnam. You know, the guy who actually went there. The guy who actually had military expertise. Lessons about having a strategy for getting in, getting out and using overwhelming force. They even named a doctrine after him and those lessons. He was pushed aside by the neo-con chicken-hawks, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, because that was pussy talk.
Cheers,
Gergen is a tool used by the powers that be to put you back to sleep.
The killing field reference is just plain goofy. After the Americans left, the Vietnamese army invaded and over threw the Khmer Rouge. One can easily blame us even more than Vietnam for the Killing Fields.
[...] GERGEN TO BUSH: WHY DID YOU GET US INTO A QUAGMIRE? [...]
At his best, Gergen is pretty insightful and candid. He needs to paired with strong, smart liberals, though, otherwise he can easily drift into pearl-clutching, bourgeois Cokie Roberts territory.
It
Resembles
Another
Quagmire
Login or Register to post comments.