Gno Schitt

Bush last night agreed that the current violence in Iraq could be compared to the Tet Offensive of Vietnam.

The fact that he agreed to this at all is a pretty confusing departure from his previous "we are on the path to victory" rhetoric.

What I think the media in the US has failed to consider, is that when confronted with some historical fact, Bush didn't have a single clue what the interviewer was really implying and took a 50/50 guess and agreed (he has certainly never read any of Tom Friedman's articles in the New York Times - you can bet your last barrel of oil on that).

Look at what he says right after agreeing - he clearly does not know what he just said:

"He could be right. There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election."

This statement has no bearing on his understanding of what the Tet Offensive meant to that war - and he has hedged a little by using the word "could". Plus, who's election is he talking about? The election in the US? Does he really believe that insurgents fighting alley to alley, house to house, in Iraq give a fuck about US mid-terms?

Of course after muttering these words, the media has jumped all over it, and the Tony-snow-job spin machine is in high gear trying to make sense of what the illiterate faux-Texan was trying to say.

Anybody else pickup on this or no?