THIS will be the FOURTH time in recent memory the these right wing Republican conservatives had to resort to underhanded tactics (treason) to WIN the presidency. Richard Nixon colluded with the Vietnamese during the 1968 election to derail sitting president Lyndon Johnston attempts to END the Vietnam war.

It should be remembered in 1968 the number of Vietnam killed up till that year 87 thousand infantry the US had lost approx 22 thousand military by 1968. IF the WAR had ended there and President Johnston attempts at peace hadn't been undermined by Nixon for political advantage, 40 thousand American boys average age 19, would have not been killed by 1975 when the war ended and literally millions of Vietnamese both military and civilians wouldn't have died.




Coalage3 9 weeks 3 days ago

Nice try at revisionism, but to no avail. Vietnam was clearly a democratic debacle. When JFK was inaugurated in Jan 1961, there were 500 military personnel in Nam. When Nixon was elected in Jan 1969, there were 500,000 soldiers in Nam. Enough said.

As to the last election, what campaign actually paid people and colluded with them in Russia in order to get information? It wasn't the Trump campaign. What candidate was aided by a crooked national party appartus and director who probably kept the more popular candidate from winning the primaries? wasn't Trump.

zapdam.'s picture
zapdam. 9 weeks 2 days ago

Coolage you should do some reading instead of just sitting staring at FOXsocalledNEWS.

Exit Strategy: In 1963, JFK ordered a complete withdrawal from Vietnam

(1) On October 2, 1963, Kennedy received the report of a mission to Saigon by McNamara and Maxwell Taylor, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). The main recommendations, which appear in Section I(B) of the McNamara-Taylor report, were that a phased withdrawal be completed by the end of 1965 and that the “Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1,000 out of 17,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in Vietnam by the end of 1963.” At Kennedy’s instruction, Press Secretary Pierre Salinger made a public announcement that evening of McNamara’s recommended timetable for withdrawal.

(2) On October 5, Kennedy made his formal decision. Newman quotes the minutes of the meeting that day:

The President also said that our decision to remove 1,000 U.S. advisors by December of this year should not be raised formally with Diem. Instead the action should be carried out routinely as part of our general posture of withdrawing people when they are no longer needed. (Emphasis added.)

The passage illustrates two points: (a) that a decision was in fact made on that day, and (b) that despite the earlier announcement of McNamara’s recommendation, the October 5 decision was not a ruse or pressure tactic to win reforms from Diem (as Richard Reeves, among others, has contended3) but a decision to begin withdrawal irrespective of Diem or his reactions.

(3) On October 11, the White House issued NSAM 263, which states:

The President approved the military recommendations contained in section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.

In other words, the withdrawal recommended by McNamara on October 2 was embraced in secret by Kennedy on October 5 and implemented by his order on October 11, also in secret. Newman argues that the secrecy after October 2 can be explained by a diplomatic reason. Kennedy did not want Diem or anyone else to interpret the withdrawal as part of any pressure tactic (other steps that were pressure tactics had also been approved). There was also a political reason: JFK had not decided whether he could get away with claiming that the withdrawal was a result of progress toward the goal of a self-sufficient South Vietnam.

That was OCTOBER 11th 1963, a month and eleven days later JohnF Kennedy would have his head blown off by unknown snipers.

Coalage3 9 weeks 2 days ago

In other words, you are grasping at straws. The dems racheted up the fight in Nam, namely LBJ, and that is not even debatable.

Keep trying some point you might even make a relevant point.

rs allen 9 weeks 2 days ago

*The relevant POINT of the blog is this kkk; "Richard Nixon colluded with the Vietnamese during the 1968 election to derail sitting president Lyndon Johnston attempts to END the Vietnam war."

Stick with the topic twit.

Coalage3 9 weeks 2 days ago

Where did this alleged collusion take place? Over the phone, in California, in Vietnam? LBJ had already placed 500,000 troops in Nam by the 1968 election nitwit. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? That is the relevant fact of the Vietnam War...period.

Quit trying to shift the both are failing miserably.

By the way, why didn't LBJ stop the war before 1968? Why didn't he stop it in 1965, or 1966, or 1967? Why? And please, don't embarass yourselves any further by trying to blame Tricky Dick.

rs allen 9 weeks 2 days ago

And why didn't it stop with the French? Now if you want to talk about emperialism and what part the us. plays on that stage, start your own thread about that.

Don't be so dense, the topic is the treasonous actions by r. nixon.

Stop trying to change the issue.

Coalage3 9 weeks 2 days ago

Good question about the French. Did Nixon collude with their enemies, too?

How could LBJ be ending the war by sending more and more troops? Did he suddenly have a divine revelation? That is really nonsensical. LBJ knew he would lose the election because of his war mongering which is why he chose not to run for reelection. I think he was misguided, but that's another issue. Nixon wasn't even expected to win the election as he had been largely irrelevant in republican and US politics for 8 years.

Come on know the story.

rs allen 9 weeks 1 day ago

I repeat, the thread is not about the Vietnam war or why we were there. If you want to talk about emperialism and colonial expansion then have at it.....on another relevant thread or start your own.

This thread is about rmn and his torpedoing of the Paris Peace talks LBJ and Hanoi had already largely agreed to and ready to put in ink.

Coalage3 8 weeks 4 days ago

So, a largely irrelevant politician was somehow able to derail the peace process? And all so he could become president and preside over a very unpopular war? Oh yeah, that makes a lot of Bizarro world.

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Democrats Should Steal Trump's Thunder on Trade

It's time to run bigger, better and harder on trade policies.