Bush has some chutzpah, doesn't he? I mean here's the lamest of lame ducks presiding over a tanking economy and an ill-advised, unpopular war that we're only in because of his and his neocon buddies' hubristic visions of spreading democracy via puppet governments and destruction of civil society.
So here he is, in the waning days of his dim-witted Presidency, trying to argue against withdraw from Iraq by invoking the lessons of Vietnam. Say what? Is he a moron? Oh, yeah, I forgot.
If you care to follow Bush's illogic for a moment, you realize that he's arguing that our withdrawal from Vietnam (begrudgingly initiated by Nixon after failure upon failure to defeat the Viet Cong and support a corrupt South Vietnamese regime) was a mistake. Apparently Bush would be happier if we were still in Vietnam right now in 2007, 32 years after the fall of Saigon.
Well, at least we probably wouldn't be in Iraq right now.
For the newbies out there who never studied history, US involvement in Vietnam began roughly in 1955, after the colonial power, France, got defeated at Dien Bien Phu (to be technical, the US had been providing France foreign aid to fight the Viet Minh since 1950). So when the US entered, we just looked like another colonial power and the war of national liberation carried on. US involvement began in earnest with Kennedy, then Johnson, and finally Nixon -- so three Presidents, right -- who begins the "Vietnamization" of the war in theory in 1969, but really we don't see US withdrawal until 1973, after ongoing peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese.
So Bush is trying to use this history of a more or less 20 year war that ended in failure and the famous images of the final helicopter leaving the US embassy in Saigon in 1975 to argue that we need to continue our involvement in a civil war in a country that only exists because of British colonial administrative necessities.
Che Guevera called for "two, three, many Vietnams" as a way to illustrate that lengthy military actions against even technologically inferior enemies are costly to imperialist powers. Unlike in the wet dreams of the neocons, wars don't unfold like Risk games, where you just line up one country's forces against another's and roll the dice. We are now embroiled in an Iraq war that's over four years old and shows no signs of significant change. Nearly 4000 US servicemen and women have been killed in Iraq, and countless more Iraqi civilians have died as a result of Bush's illegitimate invasion.
Bush is now arguing that after twenty years and 58209 US personnel killed in Vietnam that we should have "stayed the course" there as well. Does he really expect the US to sacrifice another 54000 men and women to cover up his entirely avoidable mistake until he can pass it off to another President?