If you think it's impossible to do that, who is getting blamed for Vietnam today? Who is more valued, the guy who fought or the guy who stayed home? Freepers still get excited about Hanoi Jane and still post about hippies. In twenty years, the same assholes will be posting about Michael Moore and asserting that if everynoe would have just shut up and given MORE power to Bush, by god, he would have ended it with a stunning victory.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Inland/16Republicans already blaming liberals for inevitable Iraq loss.
It's really all they have left--fixing blame for the loss now seen as inevitable
The question of how to win is left too vague for the republicans to get behind, the question of when to give up is off the table, the question of supporting the war in its present cost in military readiness and money is too horrific for taxpayers and potential draftees to contemplate.
Nothing left to do but cry treason as the reason for the loss that everyone sees coming down the road.
Iraq is like Vietnam, not in length and cost, but in there is nothing left but grabbing the issue for history. Did you see how Vietnam suddenly became the liberals fault for protesting it? How Kerry, the only candidate to actually aid the Vietnam war effort, got blamed for being a wimp and for losing it? How Moore is the new Fonda? How Rove blames the liberals for wanting to talk to the enemy--as his own pentagon is in talks with insurgent groups to address their demands? After the election where Kerry was accused of taking part in the secret Paris peace talks with North Vietnam? How the theme of traitorous, weak liberals made Bush the war hero and Kerry the goat, and excised the national unity after 9/11 for going into Afghanistan from the minds of Rovian dirtbags everywhere?
These people wanted a return to the fifties, and they are working hard on it by de-learning all the lessons from Vietnam to present.