::::::::
In June 2006, President Bush said, "I've told the American people I'd like to get our troops out as soon as possible." At the time, based on his record of a lifetime of lying, most conscious people were skeptical of his sincerity.
On May 30, White House spokesman Tony Snow said that President Bush thinks Iraq will develop along the lines of "a Korean model," and defined that to mean a situation in which the United States "provides a security presence," and serves as a "force of stability," for "a long time." (America has maintained a force in Korea of at least 30,000 troops for over 50 years.)
The next day in Slate magazine Fred Kaplan wrote, "In no meaningful way are these two wars, or these two countries, remotely similar."
First, we intervened in South Korea as a response to an invasion and as part of a broad strategy to contain Communist aggression. We invaded Iraq as part of a broad strategy to expand American power.
Second, in South Korea, there is something concrete to defend -- the border with North Korea. In Iraq, no border divides friend from foe.
Finally, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has observed another crucial difference: the U.S. military presence in Korea has produced stability there because the South Koreans welcomed us as a force for good, by contrast an ABC News poll earlier this year found that 78 percent of Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. forces on their soil.
From the war’s inception Bush had no intention of ever leaving Iraq (he’s building the largest "embassy" in the world there). It’s his crackpot dream to preside, Nero-like, over his world-wide empire for life.
