Bob Hope on Democrats

[White_Male_Canada]

After the Tet offensive in '68, it became apparent to larger and larger numbers of Americans that Vietnam was an unwinnable war.

The dominant media and the left made it appear as if Tet was a battle lost by the US Armed forces, which it was not. Once again, the left molding their opinion to become reality.

The Case-Church Amendment is nearly irrelevant to the argument...

Nearly irrelevant!? They defunded support for South Vietnam while China and the USSR were flowing tons of support into the North. Congress gave up and the result was millions of dead. Nearly irrelevant? It`s the central point and eerily similar to what the left is all about today.

WHY? Simple... not everyone who VOTES a Democrat into office IS a friggin' Democrat. There's a WHOLE lot of independents in the United States ...

Ok. So it was leftists and those who are lead by public opinion. The ones who normally pay scant attention to detail, the "moderates" or of no party affiliation.

[White_Male_Canada]

How would log-cabinboy know?

He's nothing more than a chickenshit chickenhawk who doesn't know shit from shinola.

Pipe down chicken-chicken demorat.

You got nuthin, . In fact, less than nothing ya old fart. Now get your grumpy withered flat ass and atrophied pea-brain outta here.

Thomas Sowell pegged you morons:

The liberals' favorite argument is that there is no argument --nothing uttered in opposition to liberal beliefs exists, at least nothing worthy of their intellectual engagement. Thus a la Al Gore they proceed to reiterate their point of view boldly, heroically, and with the insistence that no other point of view is worthy of notice.

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. then expounded a little more about you creatures:

The liberals' favorite debate is no debate unless the forum is totally dominated by them. Even then there will preferably be no argument, just the liberal point of view sedulously propounded in a forum shaped completely by them. This, students of rhetoric and knowledgeable of 20th century European history will tell you, is called propaganda. The Nazis mastered such forums, as did the Communists.

[Quinn]

Naturally it is safe to assume the 50% against victory were Republicans/sarc off.

Naturally, it ISN'T safe to assume that. Even Goldwater had had it with the war by '73.

After the Tet offensive in '68, it became apparent to larger and larger numbers of Americans that Vietnam was an unwinnable war. Bobby Kennedy and later Eugene McCarthy used the rising tide in the country to TROUNCE old-line Dem hacks in the primaries. Nixon tried to leverage "the Silent Majority"... which was around until the full investigation of My Lai Massacre and in '71 the release of the Pentagon Papers. By that point, the whole damned war administration was on the ropes. "Vietnamization", détente, and becoming buddies with China was Nixon's NEW plan for "peace with honor".

The Case-Church Amendment is nearly irrelevant to the argument since the more TELLING indicator of the mood of the country is that the Dems picked up 2 seats in the Senate and a dozen in the house in the '72 election. Nixon wasn't up to his asshole in Watergate prevarication and stalling yet, Kissinger had an accord in principle and there were more troops being cycled home than there were heading over.

WHY? Simple... not everyone who VOTES a Democrat into office IS a friggin' Democrat. There's a WHOLE lot of independents in the United States and when an issue is as BIG, UGLY and plain BRUTAL as Vietnam wound up being... they vote.

How would log-cabinboy know?

He's nothing more than a chickenshit chickenhawk who doesn't know shit from shinola.

LMFAO..............

-Quinn

[svenson]

How would log-cabinboy know?

He's nothing more than a chickenshit chickenhawk who doesn't know shit from shinola.

[b] Pipe down chicken-chicken demorat.

You got nuthin, . In fact, less than nothing ya old fart. Now get your grumpy withered flat ass and atrophied pea-brain outta here.

this from a person evryon ignores becase he is like jamie michele. evryon is right about you

[White_Male_Canada]

How would log-cabinboy know?

He's nothing more than a chickenshit chickenhawk who doesn't know shit from shinola.

[b] Pipe down chicken-chicken demorat.

You got nuthin, . In fact, less than nothing ya old fart. Now get your grumpy withered flat ass and atrophied pea-brain outta here.

this from a person evryon ignores becase he is like jamie michele. evryon is right about you

Thomas Sowell pegged you morons:

The liberals' favorite argument is that there is no argument --nothing uttered in opposition to liberal beliefs exists, at least nothing worthy of their intellectual engagement. Thus a la Al Gore they proceed to reiterate their point of view boldly, heroically, and with the insistence that no other point of view is worthy of notice.

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. then expounded a little more about you creatures:

The liberals' favorite debate is no debate unless the forum is totally dominated by them. Even then there will preferably be no argument, just the liberal point of view sedulously propounded in a forum shaped completely by them. This, students of rhetoric and knowledgeable of 20th century European history will tell you, is called propaganda. The Nazis mastered such forums, as did the Communists.

[insert_namehere]

Nearly irrelevant!? They defunded support for South Vietnam while China and the USSR were flowing tons of support into the North. Congress gave up and the result was millions of dead.

Hyperbole, unless you're inclined to look at wildly exaggerated numbers. Oh wait, that's right - at that time the Pentagon LOVED wildly exaggerated numbers. Still, let's look at what the Webster's New World Dictionary of the Vietnam War has to say:
US Deaths and MIA: 58,159
South Vietnamese: 224,000
(they don't list VPA and NLF but estimates range from 440,000 to 660,000)
Granted, if you want to list what happened in Cambodia, Laos and Thialand, you hop into millions - add to that our attempts to de-stabilize Cambodia which opened things up for the Kmer Rouge and Pol Pot and you can toss several more million into the body count. Gee, I can't imagine WHY Congress wouldn't want to keep funding such a well conceived and executed military action.

Nearly irrelevant? It`s the central point and eerily similar to what the left is all about today.

Here's General Westmoreland's take on Case-Church: "By the end of the summer of 1973 I thought it was virtually impossible for So. Vietnam to survive. How in the heck could they? Napoleon wrote that on the battlefield, morale is to materiel as three is to one. And sometimes it is even more important-four to one or five to one. And Cong- was cutting into both the morale and the materiel for the South Vietnamese."

Granted, he'd retired in '72 but wrote in an editorial to the New York Times: "that an early peace in IndoChina was merely an illusion and that a viable cease-fire in Vietnam was not a realistic prospect."

While he didn't agree with the Case-Church Amendment and in '75 actually asked Ford to try to overturn it, at the same time, in his memoirs, he had THIS to say: "The Paris Accord had been signed and the President, well aware of the political liabilities of our continuing presence in Vietnam, began cycling troops home. This good faith effort, he felt would advance his cause of detente with the Soviet Union, as well as accerate the process of rapproachment with China. When the Congress of the United States passed the Case-Church Amendment, it was of little importance until early '75 when the NV violated the PA as it seemed they had little to fear from us."

The one thing he failed to mention, however is that Nixon KEPT arguing to congressional committees that he WAS, in fact, turning the war over to the South Vietnamese. "Vietnamization" was a horrible failure, as evidenced by the fall of Saigon. If Case-Church hadn't been in place, Ford would have had to re-esculate the war effort immediately after taking office. We can all play "what if" until the cows come home, but at some point you have to recognize a lost cause for exactly what it is. Westmoreland did, Nixon did, and Congress did.

Ok. So it was leftists and those who are lead by public opinion. The ones who normally pay scant attention to detail, the "moderates" or of no party affiliation.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but this sort of sounds like "if you're not a conservative, you're a sheep". If you look at the state-by-state breakdown in '72, there were a number of conservatives that became the swing vote to bounce their own conservative representation OUT of Congress.

[guyone]

Pure bolshevism.

[insert_namehere]

Pure bolshevism.

Read "A Bright and Shining Lie" by Neil Sheehan and get back to me on that statement, okee dokee?

Shorthand, it's a biography of John Paul Vann, Lieutenant Colonel DFC and Medal of Freedom recipient. As both a military officer on tour of duty in Vietnam (1962/63) and civilian military advisor to the ARVN (1965-72) he became more and more critical of US involvement in bolstering the corrupt Thieu Government, as well as what he percieved to be misleading efforts on the part of the military at home to justify the war.

"If it were not for the fact that Vietnam is but a pawn in the larger East-West confrontation, and that our presence here is essential to deny the resources of this area to Communist China, then it would be damned hard to justify our support of the existing government."

He was killed in the battle of Kopntum.

Seriously, read it - It will definately break your heart, and possibly open your eyes a bit.

Oh, by the way, did you happen to know that notorious libtard Daniel Ellsberg was a Marine Corps Commander for 2 years in Vietnam, served in the Pentagon for 2 years under Defense Secretary Macnamara, was an analyst for the Rand Corporation on Vietnam and then served 2 years in the State department, again in Vietnam? Committed Cold Warrior, dude.

But, yes - he leaked the Pentagon Papers. Must have been shot with some weird bolshevik mind-ray, huh? I mean, up until that point, just like John Paul Vann - he was a right guy. Of course, both of them made these wussed arguments that the lying, cynicism and sheer bullheaded folly of the Pentagon at that time was something the American people needed to know about.

God, what a loser, eh?

[chefmike]

And now we have Watergate Redux in yet another repug oval office...only this time it's about missing e-mails, not missing tape... :P

You log-cabinboys must be so proud of your leaders.... :P

[White_Male_Canada]

They defunded support for South Vietnam while China and the USSR were flowing tons of support into the North. Congress gave up and the result was millions of dead.

Hyperbole, unless you're inclined to look at wildly exaggerated numbers. .

Westmorland:

"Militarily, you must remember that we succeeded in Vietnam. We won every engagement we were involved in out there."

And that, is no exaggeration.

Nearly irrelevant? It`s the central point and eerily similar to what the left is all about today.

Here's General Westmoreland's take on Case-Church: "By the end of the summer of 1973 I thought it was virtually impossible for So. Vietnam to survive....

The Tet loss for the north was achieved with the SV army at only about 50% due to holiday leave. That drunk commie luvin` bastard Kennedy piled on and had passed a $266 million cut in supplemental spending for Vietnam, and funds were slashed, selling out SV who were perfectly capable of defending themselves with the right arms. This leaves the South Vietnamese Army under-funded and results in a decline of military readiness and morale. To imply the South couldn`t cut it alone is false.

While he didn't agree with the Case-Church Amendment and in '75 actually asked Ford to try to overturn it, at the same time, in his memoirs, he had THIS to say: "The Paris Accord had been signed and the President, well aware of the political liabilities of our continuing presence in Vietnam, began cycling troops home. This good faith effort, he felt would advance his cause of detente with the Soviet Union, as well as accerate the process of rapproachment with China. When the Congress of the United States passed the Case-Church Amendment, it was of little importance until early '75 when the NV violated the PA as it seemed they had little to fear from us."
We can all play "what if" until the cows come home, but at some point you have to recognize a lost cause for exactly what it is. Westmoreland did, Nixon did, and Congress did.

Westmoralnd knew victory was attianable, he was a pragmatist and certainly no fucking cut and runner:


"We saved SA south of IndoChina, and we might have saved South Vietnam (SV), if we could have been supported and sustained."

Ok. So it was leftists and those who are lead by public opinion. The ones who normally pay scant attention to detail, the "moderates" or of no party affiliation.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but this sort of sounds like "if you're not a conservative, you're a sheep". If you look at the state-by-state breakdown in '72, there were a number of conservatives that became the swing vote to bounce their own conservative representation OUT of Congress.

Westmorland, speaking of the radical left:

"Unfortunately, the staying power of the American public had limits when it came to Vietnam. The anti-war movement was an important factor undermining public support."

Not to put words in Westies mouth, not to take them away either and leave false impressions.