Post by Doc Post by Steven Douglas Post by Doc
Doesn't matter if you read my posts or not. And it doesn't matter if your
version of history is more palatable to you than what actually happened.
Ignoring the long, dreary manipulations of a criminal administration, and
simply state that Democrats dropped the ball alone, is to invite anyone with
I didn't say they dropped the ball. Their actions were quite
Here we fucking go with your slippery shit again. You laid the blame for not
supporting, following through, squarely, solely on the Democrats.
That's right. The Democrats, with strong majorities in Congress, cut
off funding for South Vietnam. Meanwhile, North Vietnam was continuing
to be funded by the USSR and China. Some people say we should not have
funded South Vietnam, yet these same people never say the USSR and
China should not have funded North Vietnam. I've never understood that
Post by Doc
The assumption is that if Republicans had been in a majority
they'd gone against the grain of a society sick and tired of the Viet Nam
fiasco, which was a war we never needed to enter to protect our security.
Our government made an agreement with South Vietnam to continue to
fund them, and then the Democratic majority in Congress broke that
Post by Doc
You must be unable to imagine how it was around 1975, junior, when one
terribly manipulative criminal executive administration had just left
office, and its unpopular VP handed a withering end of a ragged, long
All Ford wanted to do was uphold our agreement to fund South Vietnam.
Our troops were already home. No one was talking about returning
troops to Vietnam (note the correct spelling of Vietnam, viola). It
was a matter of funding South Vietnam while North Vietnam was being
funded by its allies. But the Democratically controlled Congress
refused to uphold our agreement, and they had enough votes to override
a potential veto.
Post by Doc
At that time, the nation was just starting to emerge from a horrid energy
crisis and a deep recession.
I know precisely, as you do, asshole, why you choose to edit out the other
significant part of the political and social milieu of events you desire to
have the naive buy your tainted version of history.
What have I edited out? Show me. You keep telling me I'm wrong, but
you don't give any specifics.
Post by Doc
Since you claim to be a JFK fan, you must be reminded he had set into motion
the withdrawal from Nam shortly before his murder. JFK got smart, and knew
it was a quicksand quagmire. Perhaps you should take a clue from his
There are no documents to back up what you just wrote. It's a
*fanciful* speculation by leftists like you, based on nothing of
substance. However, after watching the way the Democrats gave it all
away in 1975, I wish Kennedy or Johnson actually had withdrawn our
involvement before it really got started.
Post by Doc
I'm at a loss to rationalize what you think such biased horseshit you spew
will accomplish, except to further stain your pissed warfaring pants, which
have already dropped to your wobbly knees in anticipation of another status
quo/elitist rear ram job.
Go peddle your ultra rightwing ol' wares to someone as gullible and
delusional as you.
I'm a center-right moderate, Doc. You're the ultra-extremist with some
of your views. This country is solidly center-right, and I'm right in
the middle of it. Have you seen the Gallup polls that show 40% of
Americans call themselves conservative? Another 40% are moderate, and
20% are liberal. But you'll be happy to know that those who call
themselves "strongly liberal" comprise 5% of Americans. That's you,
Doc. You're right there in that 5% fringe.
Here's something for you to think about, because I'm sure it goes
against everything you believe about the direction of this country's
[quoting] Despite the results of the 2008 presidential election,
Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent
years have become more conservative rather than more liberal, 39% to
18%, with 42% saying they have not changed. While independents and
Democrats most often say their views haven't changed, more members of
all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted
to the right rather than to the left. [end quote]
Post by Doc
None of what you 'stand by' has anything to do with accurately
the full reality of those days, and the motivation of the congress and the
people supporting their action.
What it does have to do with, is your psychotic disposition and worn
ideology that is inspired by revisionist history. It obviously gives you a
hard-on, however brief, but it does nothing for the rest of us but bore and
You still haven't shown anything of substance. Your denials, without
substance, are meaningless.
Post by Doc
In you limited view, all we really need to do is keep
ultraconservatives/conservatives in high positons of power forever, and
we'll all be so much happier.
You had your 8 years of shit-blowing, mass killing, corruption, oppression,
repression, and suppression, ass clown, and now that tent revival has ended.
Are you forgetting, with your colorful descriptions above, the
involvement of all those Democrats who voted to authorize the invasion
of Iraq, including John Kerry and John Edwards (the Democratic ticket
Post by Doc
It's the way reality works. You get your chance, then the other side gets
Wait in line, junior...you'll get your lil' shitty piece of heaven again.
The 2010 elections will be very interesting, won't they Doc?
The advice that most troubled Johnson came from the senior southern hawk,
Senator Richard Russell of Georgia -- Lyndon Johnson's mentor in the Senate.
In some of the most chilling telephone conversations from the Johnson
presidential archives, Russell explained to Johnson why this war could not
be won and how unimportant the conflict was to the outcome of the Cold War.
On May 27, 1964, President Johnson called Russell to ask him for advice on
the "Vietnam thing." Russell called the situation the "damn worse mess I
ever saw" and warned it would lead to a difficult war against the North
Vietnamese and Chinese in the jungles. Russell said the U.S. position was
"deteriorating" and that it looked like "the more we try to do for them [the
South Vietnamese government], the less they are willing to do for
themselves." Russell said Americans were not ready to send troops to do the
fighting. If it came to the option of sending Americans or getting out,
Russell said, "I'd get out." When Johnson asked him what was at stake,
Russell responded that the territory was not important a "damn bit" to the
United States. Russell also said he was concerned that McNamara was not as
"objective" as he needed to be and that he didn't understand the "history
and background" of the Vietnamese. Although Russell publicly insisted on
using as much force as possible after Johnson committed the United States to
the conflict, privately he continued to express his fears.
A similar dynamic could be seen in the debate surrounding the Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution in August 1964. The resolution granted the president sweeping
authority to use military force in Vietnam and has often been characterized
as the most dramatic example of Congress blindly deferring to the executive
branch. The House passed the resolution 416 to 0 and the Senate 88 to 2,
with Democratic Senators Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening in opposition.
Still, many legislators had to be persuaded to support the administration.
Johnson understood that, which is why he chose a widely trusted figure,
Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright -- the Chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, who had expressed doubts about the war -- to handle the
resolution in Congress.
Congress fell short in the Gulf of Tonkin debate because it did too little,
not because it did too much. Some legislators were far ahead of the
administration, predicting the problems with the war, as well as the
problems inherent in such an expansion of executive power. Facing an
election and right-wing Republicans who were questioning the willingness of
Democrats to use force, however, many members of both parties buckled and
failed to act on their misgivings until later.