"Bush accepts Iraq-Vietnam echoes" says the BBC.

As Instapundit says,

Are the terrorists trying to pull a Tet in Iraq? Of course. And the media are trying to help them. "Not surprisingly to me but shocking to many, the President obviously knows more history than his interviewer."

Knowing more history than most journalists is no great feat.

Instapundit is quoting from and links in turn to Tigerhawk, who says:

Not surprisingly to me but shocking to many, the President obviously knows more history than his interviewer. When President Bush "accepts" the analogy of the surge in violence in Iraq to the Tet offensive in Vietnam, he is not "accepting" that Iraq is an unwinnable struggle against a noble enemy. He is saying that victory or defeat in Iraq will not be a function of the amount of violence that the enemy is able to do during any given period, but our will to keep fighting notwithstanding that violence. In that one regard, Iraq is dangerously similar to Vietnam, which fact the mainstream media would know if the typical editor read military history instead of the journalism pretending to be history that fills the bestseller lists.

Tigerhawk's complaints about the word "accepts" refer to ABC news, but it's no surprise that the same can be said about the BBC headline and coverage. Nor is that one word at all unrepresentative of the whole tone of the BBC article. It says both in the text and a subhead that Tet was a "huge pyschological blow", and that it "eroded support" - while not laying quite such stress on the fact that the people who made that blow land were the media with their false reports that the Tet Offensive had been successful.