Originally posted by astralis
View Post
In 1965, when US casualties in Vietnam were just 400 of the 50K+ that would eventually come about, LBJ stated gave two main reasons for US to be in Vietnam: 1) was to come to the rescue of an ally, S. Vietnam, which was being invaded by N. Vietnam and 2)to stop the advancement of communism in the region--the domino theory.
Yes, LBJ's aides were worried that he would appear soft on communism if he didn't act in Vietnam, but that was in 1964 prior to the dem convention. At the convention he clearly stated that "We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."
The History Place - Vietnam War 1961-1964
While we are on the subject, the LBJ administration had almost total support of the Republicans in Congress. In fact, LBJ's major critics were Sen Wayne Morse and later Sen. Robert Kennedy, both dems. An effort to rescind the Gulf of Tonkin resolution failed by a 95-5 vote in the Senate with GOP help.
Now 40 years later what is different? The dems oppose and work openly to end the war in Iraq. Why? It looks suspiciously to me like they do not want a Republican administration to succeed where they failed and by working to encumber it with roadblocks (milestones) they hope to discredit it sufficiently to ensure their own victory at the polls.
then, skipping to the 90s, bill clinton's third way/DLC tried to forge a new party that was definitely more open to use of military power, to the point where american commitments overseas proved to be more than what most americans wanted (somalia). same with after 9-11 and the aftermath of the iraq invasion, as democrats fell over themselves to proclaim how glad they were saddam was eliminated. the nomination of kerry over dean comes to mind. my main concern with the Democratic Party is its vulnerability to be influenced EITHER WAY by how the popular vote goes. when the iraq war was popular in 2003, they were all for it; then by 2008 they're uniformly against it.
i think you hit the nail dead on here: the democratic party of today seeks to leverage a highly unpopular war to win the election. however, it still believes that its actions are not only electorally popular but also the right thing to do by america (however wrong that is).
one particularly good illustration of this is a point that obama makes which really infuriates mccain: the claim that even if the US did not surge, iraq would still be better off today. obama seems to believe it, but mccain must either think obama is crazy or out and out lying
one particularly good illustration of this is a point that obama makes which really infuriates mccain: the claim that even if the US did not surge, iraq would still be better off today. obama seems to believe it, but mccain must either think obama is crazy or out and out lying
EDIT: i think the crux of the argument here is exactly how deluded the democrats are. bluesman doesn't believe they could possibly be that deluded, we think perhaps otherwise
Could have fooled me.:))
Comment