What does “Legitimate Debate” Mean to You, Mr. Bush?

In your recent speech to the VFW, you chose to include this reference to Vietnam (with my emphasis):

Finally, there's Vietnam. This is a complex and painful subject for many Americans. The tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech.

(snip)

Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left.

While you’ve received plenty of criticism over this comparison, including the validity of your assertion of “legitimate debate” about the value of American military presence in Vietnam, I’m willing to accept your premise for the time being, and agree that there is legitimate debate.

My question to you, Mr. Bush, is the following: Knowing what you know now - that there is legitimate debate – and if you were in a position to be the decider, would you immediately send troops to Vietnam, or would you have that legitimate debate first?

I ask this because after recently watching the 1994 video of your own Vice President describing, in great detail, the argument against invading Iraq, it is obvious that there was “legitimate debate” then too!

To refresh your memory, here’s Dick Cheney presenting the other side of a clearly very legitimate debate that could have taken place before you decided to invade Iraq!



In the presence of legitimate debate about the Vietnam War, you are asking us to keep an open mind about the ultimate value of our presence there. However, when it came to the rush to start calling yourself a “War President” by invading Iraq, “legitimate debate” was not only ignored, but labeled unpatriotic, by you and your minions!

So what, exactly, does legitimate debate mean to you, Mr. Bush? Your legacy is going to be that you ignored legitimate debate, and bumbled into the worst foreign policy disaster in the history of our country!

About that, there will be no legitimate debate!