Vietnam and Iraq.

VIETNAM: THE NEXT IRAQ? Heh. I want bumper stickers that say that. -- Glenn Reynolds

Since the Iraq War started, when some Democrat has dared compared it to Vietnam, Putz has immediately gone on the attack, arguing the comparison is ridiculous and brandishing those who do so unserious traitors.

For instance, when Chuck Schumer dared mention the "V" word, Putz wrote this:

To some people, Vietnam wasn't a defeat, but a victory. To them, the right side won. And lost. Naturally, they're happy to repeat the experience.

Putz then quoted this idiot:

Iraq is not Vietnam and Vietnam was not WWII...So why do people who are opposed to the war in Iraq compare it to Vietnam? I suspect that the InstaPundit is right: "To some people, Vietnam wasn't a defeat, but a victory. To them, the right side won. And lost. Naturally, they're happy to repeat the experience."

Earlier, Putz wrote:

JOHN KEEGAN writes that Iraq is not Vietnam: "Anyone familiar with both situations will be struck by the dissimilarities, particularly of scale and in the nature of the enemy."

Yep, pretty much for the last four years, every time a Democrat even mentions Vietnam, we've been lectured endlessly by Putz on how historically ridiculous an historical analogy that is, how defeatist it is, blah, blah, blah.

So now that Bush is comparing Iraq to Vietnam, I look forward to Putz's quick, harsh rebuttal.

UPDATE

Last linked fixed. Damn Kiwis.