I'm listening to Bush's speech/press conference. He just characterized the Iraq/Vietnam analogy as wrong and "sending the wrong message to the troops" in the field as well as our enemies. Old old justification to condemn that deserves only contempt.
But here's a response to that argument I haven't heard yet. It seems reasonable to ask espousers of such justification how, in theory, people should take action to stop an unjust war. Do they seriously propose that it is more desirable that we continue a poorly conceived and mis-directed war purely for the sake of troop morale? Do they suggest that no war is ever wrong or unjust? That it is always a noble endeavor? That our leaders will always be accurate and well-meaning?