Because I despise Clinton means I love Bush? I don't THINK so kendall, but thanks for putting the New Democrat spin on the thread.

Now, to get back to the topic, the comparison I believe most useful is Lebanon. Although there isn't any evidence at this point that a neighboring country will intervene the way Syria and Israel did in Lebanon, I do believe the US is looking at a similar sort of civil war on many fronts. I believe we have the makings of the new Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad types of organizations already forming in Iraq to fight our occupation, the same way those organizations formed in Lebanon. While we have no PLO forming a state within a state circumstance in Iraq now, the Kurds could certainly decide now is the time to declare themselves an independent country, which theoretically could lead to Turkey becoming involved to "stabilize" the north the same way Syria did with Lebanon.

That is why I find the comparison with Lebanon, rather than Vietnam, more useful. As I said earlier, I know that the Democrats believe invoking Vietnam is a great tactic to use to defeat Bush. But that seems pretty damn short sighted to me. What happens if Kerry is elected and Iraq then becomes John Kerry's Vietnam? So I think it is dangerous and not too bright of Kennedy to be invoking it. The Democrats can't very effectively call out Bush on the lies, because they went along with the lies, and most of them, but Kerry in particular, voted to put us there for absolutely no justifiable reason.