Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, July 06, 2014

Tom Charles Huston, the national security aide assigned by President Richard Nixon to investigate what President Lyndon Johnson knew about why the Vietnam peace talks failed in 1968, concluded that Nixon was personally behind a secret Republican scheme to sabotage those negotiations whose collapse cleared the way to his narrow victory -- and to four more years of war. Huston, who is best known for the 1970 Huston Plan to expand spying on the anti-Vietnam War movement, said he was assigned the peace-talk investigation after Nixon took office because Nixon was told by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover that President Johnson had learned of Nixon's sabotage through national security wiretaps. Those wiretaps had revealed that Nixon's campaign was promising South Vietnamese President Nguyen van Thieu a better deal if he boycotted the Paris peace talks, which Thieu did in the days before the U.S. presidential election in 1968.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

reinheitsgebot

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Combine this with Reagan and Casey holding up the hostage release from Iran, mix in BS-ing us about Kuwait and Iraq and the S&L debacle and the '08 crash, and it pretty much explains why I never vote GOP.

#1 | Posted by morris at 2014-07-05 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 8

Treasonous Republicans have undermined this nation in many ways in their quest for power yet still too many good American citizens ignore the facts and vote for them anyway. The Republican Party of today is a criminal enterprise but far too many just can't quite face the cold hard facts.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-06 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

Crickets from the righties. Or are they all on vacation?

#3 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-07-06 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Didn't I report this weeks ago.

#4 | Posted by Tor at 2014-07-06 09:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Or are they all on vacation?

It's Sunday. They're all in church.

#5 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-07-06 09:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"Didn't I report this weeks ago."

Didn't I report it years ago?

#6 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-06 09:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I am not a crook"
Richard Millhouse Nixon

(a few weeks later Nixon wrote a personal check to the treasury for
$ 500,000, To re-pay the cash he stole)

A lot of conservative rubes still call him a great man ...LOL

#7 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-07-06 09:49 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Didn't I report this weeks ago."

I wrote about it about a month ago

#8 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2014-07-06 09:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nixon wrote a personal check to the treasury for
$ 500,000

Google search.

Troll.

#9 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-06 10:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

A ------ specialty. No different in purpose or principle than the Iran-Contra deal that helped Regean defeat Carter. Rotten to the core.

#10 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-06 11:57 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

If the fascisti didn't want the war to continue they would have done something. Partisanship is a shell game.

#11 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-07-07 01:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Didn't I report this weeks ago."
"Didn't I report it years ago?"
"I wrote about it about a month ago."

Didn't this all happen 40+ years ago? Christ, the only reason a discussion of the Nixon years is even relevant today is that Obama has become the President that Nixon wanted to be!

#13 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-07 07:32 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

13 | Posted by MUSTANG

We dont need know fancy learning from history!
we got Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Fox News Babes to tell us all we need to know!
History is for losers.
MUSTANG

#14 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2014-07-07 08:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

#14 What's the lesson, Punchy? Don't trust Presidents who use the IRS as a weapon? Don't trust Presidents who spy on the American public? Don't trust Presidents who hide all their activities behind a veil of secrecy? Don't trust Presidents who get all cuddly with China? Don't trust Presidents who believe that if the President does it it isn't illegal?

Those lessons? The lessons none of you liberal imbeciles learned when you re-elected Obama?

#15 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-07 08:49 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

What a bunch of crap.

#16 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-07 09:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

"This thread is a liberal -----------. All of them whacked out on conspiracy theories and nonsense."

Sure it is. Listen to it for yourself.

www.lbjlib.utexas.edu

#17 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-07 10:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The lessons none of you liberal imbeciles learned when you re-elected Obama?"

More important, you conservatives who didn't learn anything from Vietnam.

#18 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-07 10:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

And Republicans say Obama is the worst president.

#19 | Posted by Sycophant at 2014-07-07 10:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

#18 Am I wrong, Danni? Does Obama not share the 5 similarities with Nixon that I posted in #15 or does recognizing that make you uncomfortable?

#20 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-07 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

And they were telling us Benghazi was a long time ago, so they go back to Nixon? Anything but look at what Obama is doing now. Anything.

#21 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-07-07 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

To the extent Obama has followed Shrub's policies, he is a terrible President, but hardly worse than Shrub. To the extent he has broken free of the village idiot's policies he should be commended.
But the truth is Obama has followed Shrub more than he has charted a new path. Their financiers make them do it.

#22 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-07 11:02 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

More important, you conservatives who didn't learn anything from Vietnam.

#18 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-07 10:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Didn't you claim the other day that John F. Kennedy was a great president?

He's as guilty for getting us mired in Vietnam as anyone.

#23 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-07 11:07 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

attn: ET_AL
On April 3, 1974, the White House announced that Nixon would pay $432,787.13 in back taxes plus interest after an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service and a congressional committee.

#24 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-07-07 11:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Don't trust Presidents who use the IRS as a weapon?"

Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

"Don't trust Presidents who spy on the American public?"

Spying for political advantage is quite different from spying in an anti-terrorism effort.

"He's as guilty for getting us mired in Vietnam as anyone."

He had only sent in advisors and was having serious doubts about expanding the war. Then he was assasinated.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-07 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

What are you talking about Danni, "He had only sent in advisors and was having serious doubts about expanding the war. Then he was assasinated."

JFK expanded the war. It was Ike that only sent in advisers and didn't want to expand anymore.

www.jfklibrary.org

#26 | Posted by path at 2014-07-07 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#25 What about the rest, Danni? At least you had the guts to offer some lame-o dismissals and justifications of 2 of them (your answers were BS, but you gave it a shot). I offered FIVE. Want to address the other 3?

3. Don't trust Presidents who hide all their activities behind a veil of secrecy?
4. Don't trust Presidents who get all cuddly with China?
5. Don't trust Presidents who believe that if the President does it it isn't illegal?

#27 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-07 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

From your link:

"The situation did not improve. In September of 1963, President Kennedy declared in an interview, "In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it, the people of Vietnam, against the Communists. . . . But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. . . . [The United States] made this effort to defend Europe. Now Europe is quite secure. We also have to participate -- we may not like it -- in the defense of Asia."

As I recall, most people believed the war to be the doing of McNamara. He was the Dick Cheney/Donald Rumsfeld of his day. He did have the decency decades later to admit he was entirely wrong and that crimes against humanity had been committed.

#28 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-07 01:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

BTW, JFK sent a total of 16,000 advisors.
After his death the war expanded and ended up with over 500,000 troops on the ground in Vietnam.

#29 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-07 01:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Anyone that learned anything from that war would have actively protested the Iraq invasion.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-07 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

29: Thanks to LBJ
30: As did I

#31 | Posted by path at 2014-07-07 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

He had only sent in advisors and was having serious doubts about expanding the war. Then he was assasinated.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-07 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

He was a big believer in the domino theory so there is really no telling how far he would have gone had he lived. As it stands, he escalated the conflict and implemented strategies (forced relocation of Vietnamese peasants) that rallied support for the Viet Kong. He also had the CIA set the assassination of Diem in motion.

I don't understand how you could be so against that war and just brush off JFK's involvement in escalating US involvement.

There's no telling how many Americans that paranoid moron would have gotten killed had he lived. Not only did he mismanage the situation in Vietnam but we're talking about a CIC who thought the Bay of Pigs fiasco was a good idea.

#32 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-07 01:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

And the idea that he was having the South Vietnamese head of state taken out while being unsure about how involved the US should be is hilarious.

#33 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-07 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#31 I also laugh when I see a thread about Vietnam that avoids mention of LBJ. Nice work ensuring credit is given where credit is due.

#34 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-07 01:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sabotaging America is what conservatives are good at. These people are the enemy of thoughtfulness. Somehow Obama is the worst president? Riiiight.

#35 | Posted by ron81 at 2014-07-07 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

He had only sent in advisors and was having serious doubts about expanding the war. Then he was assasinated.

#25 | Posted by danni

A guy I worker with was one of thoes 'advisors'. He said tyhey did a lot of fighting ddan.

Tell me how you go into a war zone with a uniform on and NOT get involvded in the shooting?

#36 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-07 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

I certainly did mention LBJ in this thread Mustang. #17. Of course we know he escalated the war before Nixon became President but he was also on the verge of a peace deal when Nixon sabotaged that deal and cost us 25,000 more troops' lives purely for political purposes.

#37 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-07 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"There's no telling how many Americans that paranoid moron would have gotten killed had he lived. Not only did he mismanage the situation in Vietnam but we're talking about a CIC who thought the Bay of Pigs fiasco was a good idea.
#32 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-07 01:49 PM"

It's interesting to speculate (and MANY have pro/con!) what would have happened in Vietnam if JFK had lived or had been re-elected in 1964. However, your glib assessment of JFK's opinion regarding the Bay of Pigs fiasco is way overblown and not supported by the evidence:

www.history.com

Although I've been "fortunate" to have actually lived through those times which may give me a different perspective, subsequent review/analysis of the events by many others describe anything BUT President Kennedy thinking the Bay of Pigs "was a good idea". An argument can even be made that it is precisely JFK's reluctance to commit total support to the Bay of Pigs invasion (ESPECIALLY at that moment in time) which doomed its success. In a related matter: JFK did learn that completely trusting his military advisors was "ill advised". Also, JFK has been called (rightly/wrongly) many things, but "paranoid moron" is a new one to me. Good luck supporting that opinion!

#38 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-07-07 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

As I recall, most people believed the war to be the doing of McNamara.

#28 | Posted by danni

He was a VP of Ford Motor Company. He and his 'whiz kids' ran the war and really screwed it up. They came up with the idea it would cost too much to chrome the chamber of the M-16 so they didn't. It would cost too much to furnish cleaning kits with the M-16 so they didn't. They came up with so many rules of engagement the troops couldn't fight the war.

#39 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-07 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

The real reason the Viet Nam war esculated was because of the LIE LBJ told about the Bay of Tonkin. That incident NRVER happened.

#40 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-07 02:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

"An argument can even be made that it is precisely JFK's reluctance to commit total support to the Bay of Pigs invasion (ESPECIALLY at that moment in time) which doomed its success."

If he didn't think it was a good idea and allowed it to proceed anyway, that only makes him much worse of a strategist and a human being.

Given that he could have and should have stopped it form happening and didn't, he deserves the blame. The 2nd best choice would have been to allow it to proceed but with overt US support. The worst plan possible is the one he approved, which doesn't speak well for him as a strategist.

#41 | Posted by sully at 2014-07-07 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

"However, your glib assessment of JFK's opinion regarding the Bay of Pigs fiasco is way overblown and not supported by the evidence"

I love how apologists will forgive anything, BTW. He was in charge. He ultimately approved the dumbest plan possible. All those men died and it almost led to a nuclear war. That's what happened.

Forgive me if I don't him credit because he may have engaged in some hand-wringing before doing the dumbest thing possible.

#42 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-07 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"They came up with so many rules of engagement the troops couldn't fight the war."

That cost many lives. It's known as a Charlie Foxtrot.

We can't bomb over there, we have to give that hill back, we can't engage fighters if they cross this line, etc. Patton and MacArthur were probably rolling in their graves.

#43 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-07-07 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If he didn't think it was a good idea and allowed it to proceed anyway, that only makes him much worse of a strategist and a human being.

Given that he could have and should have stopped it form happening and didn't, he deserves the blame. The 2nd best choice would have been to allow it to proceed but with overt US support. The worst plan possible is the one he approved, which doesn't speak well for him as a strategist.
#41 | Posted by sully at 2014-07-07 02:35 PM"

You're entitled to your opinion (albeit from an enviable 20-20 hindsight position!). As were the military advisors who recommended their course of action to a person who had taken the oath of office only a few weeks before (and who did NOT have the luxury of 20-20 hindsight). The plan had been put in motion with President Eisenhower's (a respected military commander) approval. This is not to excuse JFK, but to give some perspective of WHY this particular choice was made. As I'm sure from your reading of history, you do know that JFK completely/publically accepted FULL responsibility.

As we NOW know, the best course of action would have been to completely abandon the plan. The next best choice (which JFK took) was to NOT fully commit US forces. It's possible (even LIKELY) that a full-scale invasion with US forces would have been a spark to initiate a USSR-US conflagration. I can only imagine your disparaging comments had THAT happened! Remember, the USSR fully had the upper hand with their access to outer space at this time and would not have been easily "cowed".

Without a precedent for guidance and the WWII/Korean War very recent memories, a nuclear exchange was a very real possibility (consider that Hiroshima/Nagasaki were only about as distant in time as Shock and Awe are to us!).

As for your comment about JFK's ability as a strategist: I can only shake my head after having observed JFK's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Good luck believing what you will!

#44 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-07-07 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I love how apologists will forgive anything, BTW. He was in charge. He ultimately approved the dumbest plan possible. All those men died and it almost led to a nuclear war. That's what happened.

Forgive me if I don't him credit because he may have engaged in some hand-wringing before doing the dumbest thing possible.
#42 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-07 02:38 PM"

Nothing was forgiven, much less "anything".

JFK did much more than you said or give him credit for.

Do yourself a favor and study a bit more.

#45 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-07-07 03:31 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"You're entitled to your opinion (albeit from an enviable 20-20 hindsight position!)."

Its not hindsight. That landing a bunch of refugees who were outnumbered and outgunned was a horrible idea is common sense. That is why I said JFK's allowing the plan to proceed is a sign of incompetence as CIC.

"As I'm sure from your reading of history, you do know that JFK completely/publically accepted FULL responsibility."

Because back then, if you were president and gave the order to allow something like this to proceed, pretty much everyone understood that you are accountable. The general public had standards. He could not avoid accountability if he wanted to because by all logic, he was the one responsible.

Its only now that partisanship has removed every last big of standards and common sense from American political thought that people can try to place blame elsewhere.

#46 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-07 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"As for your comment about JFK's ability as a strategist: I can only shake my head after having observed JFK's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis."

LOL. That situation was resolved largely because Kruschev realized that Castro was a maniac who had no qualms about starting a nuclear war. He realized his mistake and corrected it. JFK didn't handle it poorly but Kruschev is the one who basically admitted fault and ended it.

#47 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-07 03:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

JFK did much more than you said or give him credit for.

Do yourself a favor and study a bit more.

#45 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-07-07 03:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

You say that as if you made any kind of logical point that disproved anything I said.

Earth to Deluded Old Man: You didn't.

Reality is that the Pay of Pigs was a fiasco, JFK had the final say on whether to proceed. He gave the go ahead, was obviously wrong to do so and admitted as much.

Your attempts to pretend this is s grey area have failed miserably.

#48 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-07 03:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

" 'As for your comment about JFK's ability as a strategist: I can only shake my head after having observed JFK's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis.'

LOL. That situation was resolved largely because Kruschev realized that Castro was a maniac who had no qualms about starting a nuclear war. He realized his mistake and corrected it. JFK didn't handle it poorly but Kruschev is the one who basically admitted fault and ended it.
#47 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-07 03:45 PM"

Of course you're correct, that's why Mr. Khrushchev sent in "defensive missiles" after the Bay of Pigs and then sent a fleet of cruisers that went eye-to-eye with the US blockade. Only then did Mr. Khrushchev realize his mistake (LOL). Of course, the relationship JFK cultivated with Mr. Khrushchev (which, BTW, did NOT begin at all well!) and the negotiated removal of the missiles from Turkey had NOTHING to do with it (LOL)! Your expertise about this time is "interesting" to discuss.

I may be a "Deluded Old Man". You may refer to me as "the DOM".

How fortunate for you that you haven't waited until you are old to be deluded.

#49 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-07-07 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"Its not hindsight. That landing a bunch of refugees who were outnumbered and outgunned was a horrible idea is common sense. That is why I said JFK's allowing the plan to proceed is a sign of incompetence as CIC.

:
:
Reality is that the Pay of Pigs was a fiasco, JFK had the final say on whether to proceed. He gave the go ahead, was obviously wrong to do so and admitted as much.

Your attempts to pretend this is s grey area have failed miserably.

#48 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-07 03:48 PM"

Of course, from your review of the historical record, you would know that these weren't JUST "a bunch of refugees". Yes, they were refugees, but they were trained (granted, poorly/inadequately) for combat. And you would know that the landing craft were damaged upon uncharted reefs, the paratroopers landed in the wrong area, the element of surprise was lost, and there was no intelligence (!) on how many and how quickly Castro's forces could respond. But then why would you argue that there were no 'grey areas'? What is "common sense": in many combat situations, one must make decisions upon less than perfect intelligence. However, the timing of the Bay of Pigs (not unlike Iraq) was of the US's choosing. It was a mistake. To say JFK "admitted as much" COMPLETELY dismisses what he said. Is a link to the YouTube of the actual press conference necessary before you'll agree you are mistaken?

In a larger sense, the REAL error for the CIC (et. al.) is what if the invasion had actually succeeded? Wonder how that version of 'nation building' would have played out?

#50 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-07-07 05:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's known as a Charlie Foxtrot.

#43 | Posted by sames1

I'll bet less than half even know what that is.

I have a tee shirt that says;

Front towrds enemy

Back

Hardly anyone knows what that is.

#51 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-07 05:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

#49 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-07-07 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was my mistake to allow you to change the subject so I commend you on the successful deflection to the Cuban Missile Crisis. I disagree with you on the movitations of the people involved and how important all the posturing was in the whole process. To me, the "A-ha moment" was when Kruschev realized that Castro didn't seem to care about mutually assured destruction. At that point he knew he made a huge mistake and he knw what he had to do. The rest was just grandstanding like two fake tough guys bumping chests well past the time guys who really want to fight would be throwing punches. Neither side wanted to start a nuclear war so in retrospect it shouldn't surprised anyone that it didn't lead to one. But I admit that the motivations of the people involved are debatable.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that as as military strategist JFK was a borderline imbecile as evidenced by his believing the Bay of Pigs invasion had any chance of succeeding (Cheney level idiocy there) and his blunders in Vietnam.

#52 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-07 05:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Of course, from your review of the historical record, you would know that these weren't JUST "a bunch of refugees". Yes, they were refugees, but they were trained (granted, poorly/inadequately) for combat. And you would know that the landing craft were damaged upon uncharted reefs, the paratroopers landed in the wrong area, the element of surprise was lost, and there was no intelligence (!) on how many and how quickly Castro's forces could respond. But then why would you argue that there were no 'grey areas'? What is "common sense": in many combat situations, one must make decisions upon less than perfect intelligence. However, the timing of the Bay of Pigs (not unlike Iraq) was of the US's choosing. It was a mistake. To say JFK "admitted as much" COMPLETELY dismisses what he said. Is a link to the YouTube of the actual press conference necessary before you'll agree you are mistaken?"

The idea that 1,500 men were going to defeat a battle tested regime without military support from the US awas always assinine even under ideal conditions.

You mention poor training and lack of intelligence regarding terrain and the enemy's capabilities as if these are excuses rather than additional reasons why this plan was so ridiculously bad. Not to mention that the element of surpise had been completely blown. The rumors were even printed in US newspapwers and JFK had to know that too.

#53 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-07 05:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It was my mistake to allow you to change the subject so I commend you on the successful deflection to the Cuban Missile Crisis."

The subject's not changed, nor deflected. You questioned JFK's ability as a strategist. I refuted your opinion by giving an example of JFK's strategic abilities by referencing a verifiable, historical fact. Your claiming that's a deflection doesn't make it so.

"I disagree with you on the movitations of the people involved and how important all the posturing was in the whole process. To me, the "A-ha moment" was when Kruschev realized that Castro didn't seem to care about mutually assured destruction. At that point he knew he made a huge mistake and he knw what he had to do. The rest was just grandstanding like two fake tough guys bumping chests well past the time guys who really want to fight would be throwing punches. Neither side wanted to start a nuclear war so in retrospect it shouldn't surprised anyone that it didn't lead to one. But I admit that the motivations of the people involved are debatable."

You've an amazing level of insight into the motivations of those involved, completely unencumbered by their statements/actions as illustrated by the historical record (LOL)!

"None of this has anything to do with the fact that as as military strategist JFK was a borderline imbecile as evidenced by his believing the Bay of Pigs invasion had any chance of succeeding (Cheney level idiocy there) and his blunders in Vietnam.
#52 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-07 05:15 PM"

Ohh..., now it's "military" strategist. Is this where the goal post is now?

#54 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-07-07 05:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The idea that 1,500 men were going to defeat a battle tested regime without military support from the US awas always assinine even under ideal conditions.

You mention poor training and lack of intelligence regarding terrain and the enemy's capabilities as if these are excuses rather than additional reasons why this plan was so ridiculously bad. Not to mention that the element of surpise had been completely blown. The rumors were even printed in US newspapwers and JFK had to know that too.
#53 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-07 05:33 PM"

I did mention that the element of surprise was lost (timing/reading is everything!).

The only numbers the US knew for certain were "our" combatants. I suspect, even NOW, the actual numbers of "battle-tested regime" that they encountered is not absolutely known. Then again, maybe the Cuban refugees were fired-up, not unlike the Colonies against the British. "On paper" a prudent individual would never had elected to fight the Revolutionary War. Such are the fortunes of war.

My point: it's easy (apparently) for you to pontificate about the situation and JFK, especially with so little actual information regarding the specifics. I'm amazed you do not recognize that, even when confronted with whatever little information that's been supplied here.

#55 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-07-07 05:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ohh..., now it's "military" strategist. Is this where the goal post is now?

#54 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-07-07 05:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

I mentioned his role as CIC in #32. You understand that when we are talking about the president as a CIC we are talking about his role as commander of our military, right?

#56 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-07 05:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

My point: it's easy (apparently) for you to pontificate about the situation and JFK, especially with so little actual information regarding the specifics. I'm amazed you do not recognize that, even when confronted with whatever little information that's been supplied here.

#55 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-07-07 05:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

You have yet to supply an information that would make the Bay of Pigs any less of a horrible idea. Stop pretending that you have.

You're just some old timer saying "I was there, maaaan.". Yet you've provided no information what makes the idea sound like any less of a train wreck.

I'm sorry for not having more respect for your pretense.

#57 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-07 06:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Then again, maybe the Cuban refugees were fired-up, not unlike the Colonies against the British. "On paper" a prudent individual would never had elected to fight the Revolutionary War. Such are the fortunes of war."

Other than both situations involving people shooting at one another there are zero simlilarities.

#58 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-07 06:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You have yet to supply an information that would make the Bay of Pigs any less of a horrible idea. Stop pretending that you have.

You're just some old timer saying "I was there, maaaan.". Yet you've provided no information what makes the idea sound like any less of a train wreck.

I'm sorry for not having more respect for your pretense.
#57 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-07 06:01 PM"

First, nobody (JFK included) is saying that the Bay of Pigs was not a 'horrible idea'. You may stop pretending that anyone in this conversation is saying that it was anything but that (see definition: strawman: yourlogicalfallacyis.com).

Second, I'm not expecting any respect from you (take a bow: you have faithfully provided none!). Quite the contrary, which does make your arguments/opinions more annoying than compelling.

Third, what I have provided is an insight into that situation and the people. Not as an excuse (none was proffered; none was sought), but as an example of another way to understand 'how it happened'. My statements may lack rigorous/compiled/definitive links. However, their verification can be easily 'Googled' (unlike your sweeping generalizations). You've elected to ignore ALL of that. Of course, it's free advice (and worth every penny!). You're most welcome to remain in your cocoon.

Fourth, one can be a CIC and have strategies other than 'military strategies'. I thought that was obvious as we ARE discussing a politician and one who was relying on military advisors involving a military situation.

#59 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-07-07 07:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"First, nobody (JFK included) is saying that the Bay of Pigs was not a 'horrible idea'. You may stop pretending that anyone in this conversation is saying that it was anything but that (see definition: strawman: yourlogicalfallacyis.com)."

So you haven't been acting as an apologist for JFK's decision making on the Bay of Pigs this whole time? Any other alterations to reality I need to be aware of?

"Second, I'm not expecting any respect from you (take a bow: you have faithfully provided none!)."

You get what you give.

#60 | Posted by sully at 2014-07-07 08:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

The BAy of Pigs was not the totality of JFK's Presidency. Much more important than that was his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. That is where I thing President Kennedy showed his best leadership, nerve and at the same time caution. I honestly remember those days, we lived right here in Florida at the time though my Dad was at sea with the Navy. My Mom thought she was preparing for nuclear attack so...we filled the bathtub up with water, bought some canned goods and basically did what most Floridians did when expecting a hurricane. We stayed glued to our TV sets though the coverage compared to today was so much less though the reporters were not minimizing the threat at all. We really did come very close to nuclear war and JFK led us masterfully. I really can't think of another moment in post WWII history that was quite as close to WWIII. I noticed that the Soviet Union, from that moment on, had more responsible leaders, less willing to confront the US and risk a nuclear exchange and, for the most part so did we. I think Barry Goldwater's much more confrontational foreign policy desires looked a little bit nuts after that and he lost his only Presidential run in a huge landslide.

#61 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-07 08:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

BTW, JFK came into office and the Bay of Pigs plans were already drawn up. He told everyone that the United STates would not participate, the big complaint against him all these years is that he didn't send in the air cover but he had told them, up front, he absolutely would not. They went ahead with the attack fully knowing he was not going to support it.

#62 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-07 08:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So you haven't been acting as an apologist for JFK's decision making on the Bay of Pigs this whole time? Any other alterations to reality I need to be aware of?

"Second, I'm not expecting any respect from you (take a bow: you have faithfully provided none!)."

You get what you give.
#60 | Posted by sully at 2014-07-07 08:21 PM"

Feel free to point out exactly where I was an apologist for JFK's decision. The reality/record is all there above (RIF).

"You get what you give". How fortunate for you I don't live by your rule, but then (apparently) neither do you.

#63 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2014-07-07 08:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Treasonous Republicans have undermined this nation in many ways in their quest for power yet still too many good American citizens ignore the facts and vote for them anyway.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-06 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Funny I say the same thing about the filthy liberals and the Iraq war.

Many of our people died because of you filth.

rwd

#64 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2014-07-07 10:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Funny I say the same thing about the filthy liberals and the Iraq war.

Many of our people died because of you filth.

rwd

Posted by rightwingdon at 2014-07-07 10:35 PM | Reply

It's intellectually dishonest to blame Liberals for Iraq. Blame rests solely on BOTH Bush's.

#65 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-07 11:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Aide: Nixon Sabotaged Vietnam Peace Talks"

Everyone has Aides!
Aides Aides Aides!
Aides Aides Aides Aides Aides Aides!

#66 | Posted by GUNDERFUNK at 2014-07-08 02:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Amazing how the GOP are constantly doing illegal things to win elections.
Nixon
Reagan
Bush

Then they go full ------- when they lose.

Dare say we may have only had one GOP term in the 80's if not for their blatant illegal activity.

#67 | Posted by drewl at 2014-07-08 08:37 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"The BAy of Pigs was not the totality of JFK's Presidency. Much more important than that was his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis."

One led directly to the other. You want to give him credit for averting a nuclear threat that never would have occurred if not for his startling aggression and incompetence.

"BTW, JFK came into office and the Bay of Pigs plans were already drawn up."

And that he didn't tell the people who were pushing this that they are idiots and went ahead of with their plan instead makes him the head idiot.

You seem to think he was a great president if you don't hold him accountable for the fairly predictable consequences of his actions. Bay of Pigs had a 100% chance failure and a Soviet response was always a strong possiblity.

#68 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-08 09:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Amazing how the GOP are constantly doing illegal things to win elections.
Nixon
Reagan
Bush

Then they go full ------- when they lose.

Dare say we may have only had one GOP term in the 80's if not for their blatant illegal activity.

#67 | Posted by drewl

You trying to take ddan's thunder?

DEMS = good
reps = baddddd

#69 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-08 09:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Funny I say the same thing about the filthy liberals and the Iraq war.

Many of our people died because of you filth.

rwd

#64 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2014-07-07 10:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Dumbest thing I've ever read here.

GOP continues to the party of zero accountability. The Bush admin wasted thosuands of American lives while morons like you cheered them on. Own it.

#70 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-08 11:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

#70 | POSTED BY SULLY

The Bush admin saved a million African lives while morons like you jeered on. Own it.

#71 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2014-07-08 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

In conversations with his advisers during the Vietnam War, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson referred to Vietnam as "a piddling piss-ant little country".

books.google.com

#72 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2014-07-08 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Bush admin saved a million African lives while morons like you jeered on. Own it.

#71 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2014-07-08 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe he should have been a head of state in Africa then because all he did here was kill Americans and waste money.

#73 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-08 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

he did here was kill Americans and waste money.

#73 | POSTED BY SULLY

Like LBJ?

Iraq War

4,487 total US deaths (including both killed in action and non-hostile) and 32,223 wounded in action (WIA)

www.defense.gov

U.S. MILITARY CASUALTIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA -
- DEATHS BY CALENDAR YEAR -
- Year of death may either be actual or based on a presumptive finding of death -
- (originally declared missing and later declared dead). -
- AS OF MARCH 31, 1997

1957 - 1
1958 - 0
1959 - 2
1960 - 5
1961 - 16
1962 - 53
1963 - 118
1964 - 206
1965 - 1,863
1966 - 6,144
1967 - 11,153
1968 - 16,589
1969 - 11,614
1970 - 6,083
1971 - 2,357
1972 - 640
1973 - 168
1974 - 178
1975 - 160
1976 - 77
1977 - 96
1978 - 447
1979 - 148
1980-1995 - 66

TOTAL DEATHS - 58,178

www.angelfire.com

#74 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2014-07-08 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

#74 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2014-07-08 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't grade Bush on a curve because "someone else did worse".

Whether he wasted the lives of 40 or 4,000 or 40,000 US soldiers with his lies he'd still be a total scumbag and so would anyone who still bothers to make excuses for him at this point.

#75 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-08 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Whether he wasted the lives of 40 or 4,000 or 40,000 US soldiers with his lies he'd still be a total scumbag and so would anyone who still bothers to make excuses for him at this point.

#75 | POSTED BY SULLY

You talking about LBJ or Truman (33,686 Korea)?

#76 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2014-07-08 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

You talking about LBJ or Truman (33,686 Korea)?

#76 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2014-07-08 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you can read then you know what I'm talking about, moron.

#77 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-08 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

For a pissant you sure are angry.

#78 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2014-07-08 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

BTW...Whether he wasted the lives of 40 or 4,000 or 40,000 US soldiers with his lies (LBJ, Truman, Bush, McKinley*?) he'd still be a total scumbag and so would anyone who still bothers to make excuses for him at this point.

Still hold true for you?

* Philippine–American War 4,196 deaths

#79 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2014-07-08 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Both Parties and many of their leaders are corrupt and treasonous. This is America where they (those at the top) never pay the piper or are held accountable. We've allowed this corruption and immunity from prosecution to go on and it has only gotten worse. The media plays a big part in the ultimate cover up as part of their scheme to gain power.

#80 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-08 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

For a pissant you sure are angry.

#78 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2014-07-08 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not angry. I'm just not interested in your asinine deflections. Talking about what someone else did will never ever make Bush into any less of a lowlife.

You want to make a case for another president being a bad guy? Go ahead. You'll probably be right. If you have something to say, say it. You don't need my involvement or my agreement to do so.

The only reason you keep trying to involve me in what you're saying is that you're trying to deflect away from what I've said about Bush. That you haven't figure out that I'm not interested in playing along yet strongly suggests that you're very stupid.

#81 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-08 03:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

If I hear another media storybook that claims "it's a war about our freedom I'm going to cut off my propaganda cable TV" and save $200/month and move to a Pacific Island.

#82 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-09 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort