Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

Defying President Bush's demand to send him a clean war funding bill, House Democratic leaders unveiled legislation Tuesday that conditions the money on withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and adds billions of dollars in domestic spending.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Zap

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Links

More

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, outlined a $183.7 billion package that combines money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the remainder of 2008 with additional funding requested by the administration to continue military operations through early 2009.

Democrats insisted that their bill stays roughly within the overall spending limit set by the White House, but they included two major domestic items -- unemployment assistance and a new GI Bill that expands college benefits for veterans -- that would cost about $12 billion.

Obey argued that the add-ons are emergency spending and therefore shouldn't be included in the overall price tag.

The bill would redirect more than $3 billion of the president's request to pay for international food aid, levees in New Orleans and more resources for military child-care centers and hospitals.

Obey said that Democratic leaders turned down more than 100 requests for other domestic programs, such as summer jobs and infrastructure projects, and that they limited spending to things they deemed true emergencies.

"There is not a single piece of pork, not a single member project," he said.

The Democrats' plan would place a number of restrictions on the administration, Obey said. It would tie the war money to a requirement that the Pentagon begin withdrawing U.S. troops, with the goal of removing all combat forces by 2010, and it directs the Pentagon to give troops the same amount of rest time at home as they spend on combat assignments.

The bill would also require the United States to adhere to prisoner interrogation standards set out in the U.S. Army Field manual, which bans torture, including "waterboarding."

It would require all U.S. agreements with the government of Iraq to be submitted to Congress in the form of a treaty needing Senate ratification. The legislation would also force the Iraqi government to shoulder more of the costs for reconstruction projects. Half of the funds for these projects would be grants, the other half loans.

In order to move the bill quickly and avoid attempts to change it, Democratic leaders are bypassing the usual committee process. The plan is to hold three votes Thursday on the House floor: one on the war funding itself, one on the funding restrictions and one on the additional domestic spending. The entire package would then go to the Senate, but a senior Democratic leadership aide said it's unlikely the funding restrictions would pass.

By keeping the overall cost of the bill close to the president's limit, Democrats hope he will not veto it. The leadership aide argued that the GI bill and money for unemployment benefits should pass the Senate, increasing pressure on the White House to accept the entire bill.

Obey said Democrats want to avoid a veto, but he asked, "How can you be for squirreling away $200 billion on this misbegotten, godforsaken war and not be for providing a GI Bill expansion?"

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, denounced the bill.

"It is unacceptable and, indeed, unimaginable for Congress to continue to hold our troops hostage for political leverage," he said. "If House Democrats want to ramp up spending on other government programs, those items should be considered separately. A troop funding bill should fund the troops. Period."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

So what is different this time?

Lil Bush will throw a temper tantrum, veto it.

The sheep in Congress will not override and then cave in to the little emperor's demands.

Nothing more than showmanship at it's finest.


The Chimp in Charge will veto it before the ink dries. Then the Grand Oil Party will blame the democratic party for not supporting the troops.

Better off dead then to vote RED.
Grand
Oil
Party

"So what is different this time?"

The difference will be McBush has to go defend the president's veto of several points that Americans would support. The Rethugs will try to say the Dems aren't supporting the troops but unfortunately that bull shit isn't selling too well any more. I think the Bush administration will be getting less and less relevant as the election approaches and will descend further into chaos.

Ultimately the dems will surrender like the cowards that they are. Vietnam ended the same way, dems quit.

" Vietnam ended the same way, dems quit."

Some idiotic posts defy comment.

**** Vietnam ended the same way, dems quit.
Posted by fwthom *****

......Nixon was a Republican.......

"Vietnam ended the same way, dems quit."

What a moron.

More than 22,000 Americans died in Vietnam during Nixon's watch, while he and Henry the K were looking for a way to bug out without giving the appearance of bugging out.

"Declare victory and leave."
Sen. George Aiken (R-VT)

WOW!
Impossible to FATHOM the idiocy of FWTHOM's post!

Skizziks,

Yes, but the decision to leave was made by Johnson. Nixon was stuck with executing a bad decision. He executed it badly too.

Danni,

The Bush criminal cabal is becoming less and less relevant every day as evidenced by Lil Bush's appearance on "Deal or no deal". What a fuckwad. Instead of working towards solving the fucking mess he created in Iraq he is just biding his time until he can clear brush in Crawford permanently.

I still see in the end Lil Bush getting his way after throwing a temper tantrum.

Nixon was stuck with executing a bad decision.

I call bullshit.

Why can't our pussified congress just say no to Bush? Hmmmm? Someone please tell me what magic he has over them.

Is it because his good-ole-boy oil cartel has them in their back pockets? If not, what?

726,

You call bullshit? On what basis?

"On what basis?"

One, I'd say, was Nixon accepted virtually the same terms he and Kissinger had been offered four years prior. Another would be the theory of plausible deniability, where they made a deal to delay the takeover, effectively hanging our bravest out to die. Nixon wasn't "stuck"; he made many, many decisions, and could have changed course any time he wanted. The ultimate proof, though, is the treason Republican nominee Nixon committed in 1968, persuading Nguyen Van Thieu to avoid the talks by promising him a better deal for South Vietnam under him as President.

Newly elected President Richard M. Nixon declared in 1969 that he would continue the American involvement in the Vietnam War in order to end the conflict and secure "peace with honor" for the United States and for its ally, South Vietnam
www.state.gov

Four years later!
Apparently Jon will be back to tell us FDR won WW2 using Herbert Hoover's battle plans. But, since John McBush has already declared victory again, and stated the war was all but over, even he agrees its time to start withdrawing.

Danforth,

I'm not defending Nixon. My point was that Johnson had committed the the army to defeat...thus his lack of desire to run and preside over it....he dumped it on Nixon, who did a poor job executing it.

To say Nixon lost the war was foolish and inaccurate...

"To say Nixon lost the war was foolish and inaccurate..."

I'm waiting for you to say that about our next President and Iraq.

Nixon lost the war. that statement is quite accurate. Kissinger negotiated the loss 2 years prior to the pull out. get with history. the old political lines dont work any more

Nothing a gool ol' Signing Statement can't fix.

Another move that only gives the appearance of standing up to the president.

Good work, dem's.




Vietnam ended the same way, dems quit."

Some idiotic posts defy comment.

Posted by Danforth


It's kind of sad, huh? This fwthom guy might just be the most ignorant poster in town, if you've been reading along in other threads as well.

George,

Kennedy started the war. Johnson escalated the war and then gave up, just as we were winning it. Johnson decided it was lost. Johnson started the ending of it from a military standpoint. He dumped the negotiations on the next administration. Nixon ended the war badly. Those are the facts.

Danforth,

Keep waiting. It appears to me that we're winning. Clearly, it appears to Iran and the terrorists that we are winning. They're hoping to be bailed out by Obomba or Billary. That's not gonna happen. It'll be interesting to see how fast Iranian destabilization will stop of its own accord when McCane is elected....

But, we can pontificate forever...let's see what actually happens.

Why won't anyone state the obvious. The US was allied with a hopelessly corrupt South Vietnamese Government which had NO popular support. This afforded the Vietcong plenty of cover, even though their leadership was worse. The people did not come to that realization until after we left.

Westmoreland was ineffective against the Vietcong, because of the vaste civilian cover they enjoyed. But, win or lose, shiploads of money was made by our Military Industrial Complex. Anyone see a pattern here.

"Johnson escalated the war and then gave up, just as we were winning it"

That's some serious revisionist history.

Danforth,

The Vietcong were obliterated during Tet. Vaporized....Gone....We chose to give up right after we did that. Unless I'm wrong, and I might be, 1969 was during Johnson's time.

If I'm wrong, and Nixon was in charge in 1969, then I, too, claim "bullshit", and losing the war should be placed on Nixons plate.

Anyone see a pattern here.[?]

Posted by nutcase

Yeah, that it's always a smart bet to invest in the arms industry. Especially when impeachment is off the table.

the iraq war is over. just depends on how many more young americans little george wants to kill and fuck up. The war was lost due to lack of strategy, lack of plans, lack of materials and lack of leadership. Check out sanchez s new book. he was the commander on the ground for the first year. This war has lasted longer than ww 2. The "enemy" had no tanks, no planes, no navy and the U S couldnt win. Thank goodness we have not had ww 3 during this clowns administration.

Nixon in 69. Johnson didn't run in 68.

the iraq war is over. just depends on how many more young americans little george wants to kill and fuck up.
Posted by Georgeisadrunk

Not if you ask Obama or McCain (mentioning Clinton is a non-starter).

Vote for a major party candidate and share in the joy of perpetuating a war based on lies until after the 2012 election.

Hagbard,

Then, I call "bullshit" on myself. Johnson fucked up the war, but Nixon lost it....

Thank you for your patience.

ryker

Thank you for your patience.

ryker

Posted by jonryker

No problem. I have family members with that name, so you get some lattitude. This time.

Unless I find out you actually are one of my family members. then we've got a problem... lol.

George,

If the war were over, you'd see a lot worse morale amongst the troops.

jon, they are just dieing to get out of there. The war is lost. Islam won

If the war were over, you'd see a lot worse morale amongst the troops.

Posted by jonryker

Am I wrong or is the only way to keep troop morale up to give them excuses, legitimate or otherwise, to allow them to do what we've trained them to do?

I've heard a couple of my friends in the Navy and Marines say as much, but I couldn't allow myself to believe that they represented to majority of servicemen.

George,

See, I'm just not seeing that. It was so obvious in Vietnam, and the media coverage was a lot more spotty....it was still obvious that the soldiers had given up. There is no evidence for this at all to speak of, except for politically-motivated retired generals who are nowhere near the action, but might have big asses to cover.

What you see from the troops still is a belief that they are doing good and succeeding, although sometimes at a frustrating pace. Of course they'd like to be home, but they support the mission and clearly believe they can win....

You can also see it in Bush's political positions. If he thought they'd lost, he'd have declared victory and left. He hasn't done that. I think that too, says a lot.

What doesn't carry weight is people simply saying "The war is lost", which the Left has been saying for FIVE YEARS. Well, if it had been lost 5 years ago, don't you think that by now we'd have been driven into the ocean or all killed or seen mutinies or something....The facts just don't support your position, regardless of how many times you repeat it.

yes the facts support the issue. The country is on the verge of civil war. You have three different factions who will not consolidate. The only way the U S has kept the war at bay has been to pay off the Sunnis and the shia. when the payments stop the fighting starts again. The Kurds have been give to Turkey to keep in their place. The iraqi government has not accomplished 80% of what the committed to do 2 years ago. Today the "GREEN" zone of safe zone is being blasted daily. They cant defend it. If there is one thing that unites all of iraq it is the desire to throw the infidels out. The catch 22 for little george is that he cant go and admit defeat and he cant stay and admit defeat. The country is far far worse off today economically that with saddam. it is over

Johnson escalated the war and then gave up, just as we were winning it. JONRYKER

......how old are you Ryker ?........

.....if you are old enough to remember, then your memory is failing.......if you are not old enough to remember Viet Nam , then you have to read more......

......because you seem to be sadly oblivious of the facts......

......while American advisors were in Viet Nam during Kennedy's time, it was Johnson who used the fake "Gulf of Tonkin" excuse to involve America wholesale.......

......the entire enterprise was a HOPELESS QUAGMIRE (EXACTLY LIKE IRAQ )...so Nixon decided to get the hell out.......

.......President Johnson did the wrong thing......and President Nixon did the right thing......

......just as today, President Bush did the wrong thing.....and President Obama will do the right thing.......

The dems in congress cut off funding for the Vietnam war just like they will do when Obama/Hillary wins POTOS.

"President Obama will do the right thing......."

Posted by skizziks

Right after the 2012 election that is. Maybe.


"The dems in congress cut off funding for the Vietnam war just like they will do when Obama/Hillary wins POTOS."

Posted by fwthom

They don't need a dem president to do that. They could have cut the funding for over a year and a half now. Please.

This isn't Bush's war, this is OUR WAR!

beg to differ, it may be your war. it isnt my war. it is that ass wipes war. also, he is not my president, he is a war criminal

Yeah EXACTLY what Georgeisadrunk said. AMEN

Larry Mohr

beg to differ, it may be your war. it isnt my war. it is that ass wipes war. also, he is not my president, he is a war criminal

Posted by Georgeisadrunk

Every day that you go to bed having paid your taxes this is your war.

You might not like it, but its yours all the same.

nope, i sleep well. not my war. i leave the war to folks like you.

Kennedy did NOT start Vietnam, Eisenhower DID!! Old Ike put our troops and advisers there in the 50's, Kennedy inherited it.

Nixon's first term we were in Vietnam, when he was running for re-election his entire campaign was based on getting out of Vietnam. Do you not remember, "I have started the troop withdrawal, now elect me so it can continue?"

Sorry but since people don't have control with where their tax money goes how can they be responsible for what it pays for?? That is craziness if You ask Me. Just like if one gives Me 1000 dollars and I go blow it on junk food. Are they responsible for My weight gain??

Larry Mohr

larry, we told you that money was for the lotto, not junk food !!!

These posts show how little the sheep understand about how congress works:

Lil Bush will throw a temper tantrum, veto it.

The Chimp in Charge will veto it before the ink dries.

The difference will be McBush has to go defend the president's veto of several points that Americans would support.


Folks, the funding restrictions will never get past the Senate:

The entire package would then go to the Senate, but a senior Democratic leadership aide said it's unlikely the funding restrictions would pass.
This is more pathetic grandstanding by the Dems in Congress which in the end is meaningless.

If they really wanted the troops out they would refuse to fund the war. Period.

just give the war criminal the money !! right, right?

Vietnam War Experts,

No, I'm not old enough to remember anything but the end of it, and then, as a child.

However, Eisenhower had people there in very limited numbers and capacity. Kennedy upped the involvement in numbers and activity, although it was still not an open thing. Johnson truly scaled it up and made it an open war, all the while trying to fight it without trying hard to win it. Nixon, as much of a lefty as any Dem, pandered to the potheads and got re-elected promising to end the war "with honor"...Sounds a lot like Billary and Obomba now....It wasn't good for our country or world peace then and it isn't now.

Skizziks,

It was not the right thing to do to end the Vietnam War without winning it. Millions were murdered, and our enemies are still questioning our dedication to what we stand for even now because of it.

One of the reasons Iraq is taking so long is that the terrorists believe we'll wimp out in the end. The democrats seem to agree with them, and indeed declared defeat 5 years ago. They also did this in Vietnam and in the Civil War. Generally, that's what Democrats do....wimp out, it seems....

Our enemies have noticed, and well-intentioned Americans have to fight through Dem treason in addition to our enemies....

Fortunately, many still agree to do so.

jon, can you please refer me to the speech where the dems declared defeat?

The only ones who are treasonous are the ones who will sell the troops to the slaughter that is Iraq than to swallow their pride and admit they lost. That is the truth of the matter. Pride goeth before the fall.

Larry Mohr

"Johnson truly scaled it up and made it an open war, all the while trying to fight it without trying hard to win it. Nixon, as much of a lefty as any Dem, pandered to the potheads and got re-elected promising to end the war "with honor""

One agreement, one disagreement:

First: Nixon never pandered to "the potheads" or even pretended to. He made no effort to hide his disdain for them.

Second: You're dead-on about Johnson. He wasn't playing to win, he was playing to tie. He would only bomb enough to affect the Paris Peace Talks.

We were supposed to learn from that the lesson we should never fight a war we're not prepared to win. Too bad too few learn from history.

Oh and Jon when did Iraq attack the United States?? When did the Iraqis become the enemy??

Larry Mohr

Danforth,

I'm guessing Nixon's anti-war stance got him an awful lot of votes from the peaceniks...so, I'd call that pandering to them. It's also why they got so mad at him when he didn't end the war as fast as they wanted him to. That part, I do remember.

nixon was to busy lieing, covering up and setting up taping systems to pander.

jon, where was that declaration? show us please

Kennedy did NOT start Vietnam, Eisenhower DID!! Old Ike put our troops and advisers there in the 50's, Kennedy inherited it.

Actually, Truman got us involved in Vietnam by sending the first advisors in to help the French in 1948. Eisenhower continued that policy, and Kennedy put the first Combat Advisors into Vietnam in 1960. Johnson heavily escalated the conflict, and authorized the final troop additions in December 1968 (after Nixon had been elected) to bring troop levels to 543,400. Those troop additions finished in April 1969.

Nixon ran on a platform of reducing troop levels and acheiving "peace with honor" in 1968, and crushed Humphery, who was a last minute fill in when LBJ bowed out of the election. Nixon was the first president to actually withdraw troops, and immediately began authorizing troop withdrawls starting in July 1969. The phased troop withdrawal will occur in 14 stages from July 1969 through November 1972.

Throughout Nixon's Presidency, 71% of Americans, on average, approved of the troop reductions, "Vietnamization" policy and the Paris Peace Talks, which were started by Nixon in 1969.

Having read this thread, it is pretty apparent that everyone needs to learn a little before spouting off about Vietnam.

Vietnamwar.com


Larry, George,

The war is not against Iraq, it is IN Iraq. We're at peace with the elected government of Iraq. The war is against global terrorism. Iraq happens to be one of the current theaters. It won't be the last.

Since "global terrorism" doesn't have a nation-state (although it does have nation-states who fund it, like Iran), declaration of war doesn't have any place. That's what you do if you're fighting a sovereign government.

The terrorists did not declare war on us, either...they simply commenced killing us.

First of all when did ANY Iraqi attack the United States?? Since terrorism and acts of terrorism are CRIMINAL ACTS and not Acts of War how do You support Bombing and waging war against a Country?? Another thing since terrorism is a tactic how can You wage war against it?? No can do. Sorry but thems the facts. You support a War of Aggression against Iraq. Face the facts JonRyker

Larry Mohr

so jon, you are saying that little george invaded iraq because of terrorism?

Try again ROC. Truman only gave money to the French. It was Ike in 1954 that sent in the first advisors to Vietnam. Nice try however.

Larry Mohr

righty, larry is correct

Larry,

I have no problem with wars of aggession, provided they are strategically valuable. It worked for the Union against the South and the results have clearly justified the act. I've been through the multiple reasons Iraq was the right place on other posts. If it wasn't the right place, the terrorists wouldn't be dying in such large numbers and risking so much prestige over it. I will submit their actions as proof of the importance of Iraq in the Terror War.

George,

Yes, ultimately. I've been through that in detail before. I know that's not what he said and I think it was a mistake for him to not give his true reasons, but nevertheless, there are lots of good reasons to fight the Terror War in Iraq, all politics aside.

Larry-

How often do I have to prove you wrong before you stop challenging me?

In 1950, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the People's Republic of China (PRC) recognized each other diplomatically. The Soviet Union quickly followed suit. U.S. President Harry S. Truman countered by recognizing the French puppet government of Vietnam. Washington, seemingly ignorant of the long historical antipathy between Vietnam and China, feared that Hanoi was a pawn of the PRC and, by extension, Moscow.[7] As historian and former Hanoi foreign minister Luu Doan Huynh has commented, "Vietnam a part of the Chinese expansionist game in Asia? For anyone who knows the history of Indochina, this is incomprehensible."[7] Nevertheless, Chinese support was very important to the Viet Minh's success, and China largely supported the Vietnamese Communists through the end of the war.

The outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 marked a decisive turning point. From the perspective of many in Washington, what had been a colonial war in Indochina was transformed into another example of communist expansionism directed by the Kremlin.[8]

In 1950, the U.S. Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG) arrived to screen French requests for aid, advise on strategy, and train Vietnamese soldiers.[9]
At least you could have checked
Wikipedia, for gods sake before betraying your ignorance.

Guess who was still POTUS in 1950....

Truman.

there is no terror war in iraq. there were no terrorists there when little george invaded. why are we there? what does victory look like? what is a terrorist?

righty, larry is correct

Posted by Georgeisadrunk at 2008-05-07 01:41 PM


"Stupid is as stupid does."

C'mon people, does it really hurt to check your facts before popping off?

would those facts be your facts? ie heck of a job there brownie, harriett is the most qualified person in the country to be on the supreme court? just wondering

George,

So those car bombers and suicide bombers aren't terrorists?

You miss my point. The war against terror is not confined by national boundaries. The terrorists do not have allegience to any nation. So, where you fight them has nothing to do with what their nationality is. Many things must be considered. Iraq was easily the best choice of battlefield.

1. Get rid of evil dictator, so world approves of choice of battlefield. This is a big favor to Shia, to whom he was no friend. Ultimately, they will see that when they've had time to cool down. Many already have.

2. Ensure Iran doesn't get control of Iraqi oil or invade Iraq by placing permanant US deterrent force there.

3. Plant democratic government in oldest and most-respected culture in the middle-east, thereby setting a clear example to the other caliphates as to how to go about it.

4. Bin-Laden had already declared that Bagdad would be the global capital of a new islamic empire....so, you make him look bad by taking it or kill him when he tries to take it from you.

5. Prevent Saddam from forging long-term counter-alliance with terror groups...ie providing weapons

6. Much more conducive for armored warfare than Afghanistan or Pakistan.

ETC...I get tired of listing all the reasons, as they should be evident to anyone who actually has troubled to form an opinion on this matter.

George-

LMAO, is that all you got? A Katrina or Myers deflection when you get caught confirming Larry's demonstrably incorrect statement?

Fool.

jon, what is a terrorist? also, where are those WMD? Can you explain the old picture with saddam and Rummy?

Right, it is impossible for you to LYAO. For it seems that your ass is just to big. Shame that you had to begin with insults. Shows the validity of your positions or lack there of as well as your general maturity level.

George,

Who cares what a terrorist is? How does symantics determine whether or not you decide to go kill people?

WMD's was the sales pitch he used to start the war. I think this was a mistake. Certainly, he'd had them in the past and could easily make more and sell them to terrorists if he wanted to. The UN was in support of his removal, so that made the situation politically convenient. Is that really so difficult to understand?

you say oyu are fighting terrorists. I would think it is important to know who they are. no? Are you saying that the U N authorized Herr bush to invade iraq?

Liar JonRyker. The UN Did not support this Illegal War in Iraq. Why do You guys on the right say otherwise?? It's so much poppycock.

Larry Mohr

George,

Yes, they authorized the invasion of Iraq....not that that should matter to an American, but I know you lefties listen to the UN...

Of course, you can't really kill all the terrorists....you prevent them. The real goal is to allow for stable, democratic governments to arise....you don't get terrorists coming from places with stable, democratic governments because places like that do not cause the despair and hopelessness that the Caliphates do....

Our military goal is to remove force barriers to the democracies forming up and to provide them with the stability to organize and establish said democratic society. Long work, but in the end, this will deny recruits to terrorists. If democratic governments can become the rule in the Middle East, then the Bin-Ladens will have no one interested in their pitch, and global terrorism will wilt.

What is the alternative? If we allow these hopeless conditions to fester, there will be no end to the supply of terrorists, and they will come after us whether or not we are there, because hate is their currency. We've already seen this happen...They aren't interested in peace....If there is peace, what are they gonna do with all these hopeless bomb-carriers, who make money for their families and get to heavan all by blowing themselves up and killing innocent people?

No, they don't want peace. The way to end this hopelessness is to help provide hope, with democratic governments intstalled, if necessary, with help of our arms. I can't think of a better use of the military than this one.

Defying President Bush's demand to send him a clean war funding bill, House Democratic leaders unveiled legislation Tuesday that conditions the money on withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and adds billions of dollars in domestic spending.


The Dems have talked tough before.
But the minute Bush says he'll use his veto pen or ((( shudder ))) threatens to hold a press conference and say "the Dems hate our troops" if they don't give Bush his billions with no questions asked, then the Dems leaders fold like a house of cards on a windy day and give Bush his way. Happens every single time.

The main difference with the two parties is the Republicans stick together like glue. They get their GOP marching orders and no one waivers. The Democrats, on the other hand, are made up of so many varied "little groups" and "special interest groups" within the Democrat Party they scatter on the issues in every direction like a broken vial of mercury.

The Republicans win every time because they stick together. The Dems ought to try it sometime.

George-

You were the one who unequivocally confirmed Larry's unsupportable statement about Vietnam (righty, larry is correct) when all you had to do is to use the Googles on the phrase "Truman and Vietnam" to see that he (and you) were incorrect.

Then you tried to cover your mistake with a lame Bush deflection which had nothing to do with Vietnam.

Sorry if that got your Manties in a knot, but when any poster does something like that, I am going to call it like it is.

Nixon ran on a platform of reducing troop levels and acheiving "peace with honor" in 1968, and crushed Humphery, who was a last minute fill in when LBJ bowed out of the election.

Actually, the 1968 election was extremely close. I've always found it interesting that HHH was able to do as well as he did, given how unpopular LBJ was.

The Vietcong were obliterated during Tet. Vaporized....Gone....We chose to give up right after we did that. Unless I'm wrong, and I might be, 1969 was during Johnson's time.

If I'm wrong, and Nixon was in charge in 1969, then I, too, claim "bullshit", and losing the war should be placed on Nixons plate.

Posted by jonryker


Nixon was sworn in as the 37th President on January 20, 1969.

It is intellectually Dishonest to declare that the United Nations authorized the Illegal Invasion of Iraq. Had they of We would not be having this conversation today. None of the UN Resolutions approved of the use of Military force as per 42 of the UN Charter. Nice try once again.

Larry Mohr

The Republicans win every time because they stick together. The Dems ought to try it sometime.

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-05-07 02:28 PM


Chris wins the Moment of Clarity Award (tm) for the day!

Keep up the good work, and thanks for playing!

I still dont know what you call a terrorist. The U S is not interested in the growth of democracies. That is total unmitigated B S. If so, why is the U S opposed to Chavez in Venezuela? why opposed to Hamas? The U s wants stooges who are toads to U S poliy regardless of their form of government. Cuba bad, China good? Hmm.. Pakistan, lead by a dictator who took over by coup. Iran, the demon president was elected. The democracy game doesnt work. It is B S. Saddam used to be a friend of the Republicans. What happened? He was on the U S payroll. So was Castro and Noriega. Your democracy excuse doesnt wash. In fact they do want peace. Do you know what it is that OBL is fighting for? just a simple question. also, one more time. What is a terrorist?

right, go sit in the corner with your Manties around your head and count the national debt.

Katie and Jon-

The Tet Offensive was in 1968, during Johnson's administration, the only thing that Jon got wrong was the date.

That being said, while the failure of the Tet Offensive did result in the VC not being able to coordinate attacks for almost two years afterword, it was the beginning of the end for US involvement, since it was the first coordinated attack on major SV cities and the press, who mostly cowered in Saigon, got major coverage of the fighting for the first time.


The dems in congress cut off funding for the Vietnam war just like they will do when Obama/Hillary wins POTOS.

Posted by fwthom


We were already out of VN by then. Nixon had already surrendered. And President Ford (R) supported the decision. Maybe you want us to continue to bankroll an Iranian puppet (maliki) for the next hundred years too?

Yes, they authorized the invasion of Iraq

Please provide a link. rememeber, Bush said he would go to the Security Council for approval but never did. You Righties really need to get a grip on reality, though I know it doesn't agree with you.

"The Vietcong were obliterated during Tet. Vaporized....Gone...."

From personal experience I can say that is bullshit.

"It was not the right thing to do to end the Vietnam War without winning it."

Except there was no way we could win it. The SV people had absolutely zero faith in their govt, we had almost no control over the countryside, the NV were very willing to fight for decades, and we were being drained by the entire experience. This belief that we could have won the war, but lost only because of politicians or the media or the American public is absolute and total bullshit. Anyone who spent time incountry could and did see that.

Georgie's deflections are the worst I have ever seen.

"The Vietcong were obliterated during Tet. Vaporized....Gone...."

According to the Pentagon, the VC killed, wouned and captured in tet exceeded the entire number of VC in existence. These are the same guys that told you Jessica Lynch took out an Iraqi armored division and Pat Tillamn died in a knife fight with Osama bin laden and that my Lai was just a bbq that got out of hand.

chair buddy how you hanging on Pat Tillman. A hero cause little george the nazi said so. gave his life defending his country says little george. lied to the family what is it 6 times so far?

The Pat Tillman debacle was a giant clusterfuck.
I never believed the Jessica Lynch story.
Lying is never the way to go.

That being said, you're deflecting again.

you are changing your tune are you getting old?

We all are getting older.
No change of tune. I trust the military to screw up where ever it can. I trust them to do things that don't make sense.
I trust politicians to do the same.

Put the two of them together and you're garaunteed to get a clusterfuck.

"I'm guessing Nixon's anti-war stance got him an awful lot of votes from the peaceniks...so, I'd call that pandering to them"

You're guessing wrong. Nixon was the embodiment of us still being there. They hated him, and he returned the feeling.

Northguy,

You mean, the same guys working in the pentagon back then still are? Wow, they're getting old....It might explain a fair amount of the incompetence displayed...

FYI,

Certainly, the morale in the army was terrible towards the end, as you know better than me. I certainly can't blame them, either. Getting killed in a war your commanders weren't trying to win would piss me off too, particularly if I was drafted.

However, I'm sure that said army would have jumped at the chance to win quickly after the obliteration of the VC. I'm guessing that if the gloves had been taken off at that point, there was a window in which the war could have been won. Instead, Nixon chose to bomb stuff, which doesn't win wars. Then again, he wasn't trying to win it.

So, if the same attitude of not trying to win had been pursued, then I agree with you, we could not have won. A surge immediately following Tet, however, and my opinion is that we could have won the war. We certainly would be a lot better off now if we had. So would a lot of dead Cambodians.

Danforth,

Yet, they voted for him in 68, presumably because of his platform, because it was not his personal charm.

"Yet, they voted for him in 68"

The "peaceniks"?!? Try reading a history book. Or talking to one of us who lived through it.

"there was a window in which the war could have been won."

JonRyker, you're missing the main point. The SV people did not have ANY trust in their govt. The VC controlled the coutryside. NV was in it to the bitter end. We would have had to overcome all these issues, plus more, to win. Not just in my opinion, it couldn't happen.

"the morale in the army was terrible towards the end"

Morale was bad even in the 60s. Lots of brass who didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground. Lots of "take that hill, then let the NVA or Charlie have it back". Lots of "deer in headlights" attitudes.

101-

I agree, but deflections are oft times all one has...once again, ROC's dismemberment of a poster, this time Georgeisadrunk, cries out for the addition of an "Owned" flag.

Danforth and Jon-

I am not sure it is fair to say that Nixon "surrendered" but it is fair to say that he presided over the surrender of Vietnam by the US. I lived in Haight Ashbury in the late 60's and the hatred of all three candidates, Nixon, Humphrey and Wallace is seared in my memory, since there were continual protests (of which I was a part) against the US Government policies in Vietnam on a daily basis.

left coast, you been smoking that calif funny weed?

You righties are missing a large truth.

We used our weapons of mass destruction to obliterate Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan for the next 4.5 billion years (about the life of the universe). In Vietnam our weapon of mass destruction was agent orange.

All the while claiming others are evil killers Shrub has killed, maimed or dislocated 5 million Iraqis, caused the death of 4,000 of our own troops, permanently maimed at least 90,000 of our troops, and left another 20-30,000 to commit suicide.

We are losing on two fronts. But Oh, the money that was made dwarfs the crimes.

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, li, and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy..

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Drudge Retort

RSS Spec