YAN Republican Criminal.

11/29/05 10:26:12 AM

The pont isn't which side is worse....

the point is that these actions are tolerated (by the parties).

The one good thing about Duke, he did a very nice job resigning with class and style. Give him credit where it's due.

Post #236,415

by boxley

11/29/05 10:33:41 AM

delay should proclaim him the best congressman evah!

Post #236,435

11/29/05 1:19:36 PM

Take it with a grain of salt....

Delay also defends [link|http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/061505/delay.html|John Murtha], so make what you will of it.

Post #236,438

by Another Scott

11/29/05 1:39:38 PM

I guess he doesn't remember his Shakespeare.

From your link:

At the briefing, DeLay also defended Democratic Rep. John Murtha (Pa.), who was the subject of a Los Angeles Times article questioning the lobbying activities of Murtha\ufffds brother in connection with passage of last year\ufffds $417 billion defense spending bill.

The article said Murtha\ufffds brother, Robert \ufffdKit\ufffd Murtha, is a senior partner at a Washington lobbying firm that represented 10 companies that received a combined $20.8 million in contracts from the defense bill.

\ufffdI know that John Murtha is an honorable man,\ufffd DeLay said during the briefing, adding that he did not know any details of the article. \ufffdHe is a man of great integrity.\ufffd

It's generally not a good idea to be praised as an [link|http://www.hycyber.com/VERSE/friends_romans.html|honorable man] - at least not among those who might remember their Shakespeare (as I'm sure the reporter does):

ANTHONY
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interr\ufffdd with their bones.
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious.
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answered it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest --
For Brutus is an honorable man,
So are they all, all honorable men --
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me.
But Brutus says he was ambitious,
And Brutus is an honorable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill.
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept.
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious,
And Brutus is an honorable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious,
And sure he is an honorable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause.
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
O Judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason!

Bear with me.
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #236,444

by boxley

11/29/05 2:23:43 PM

was refering to gore on whitehouse lawn

Post #236,428

11/29/05 11:51:34 AM

To me, the problem is how much power is concentrated

When one party controls Congress, Senate and the Presidency, the ease of corruption makes members of that party into the worst offenders. Furthermore a feeling of safety and dominance makes it easy for them to quickly ramp up how egregious the norm is. An effect whose cumulative effect can be seen in today's Republican leadership.

Democrats are better today - but through lack of opportunity, not desire.

At the moment I would like to see Republicans get less opportunity and Democrats more. But if their roles were reversed, I wouldn't like the Democrats either.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #236,433

11/29/05 1:10:14 PM

Disagree.

But only slightly. The Democrats have never produced a Haldeman, a Nixon, a Dean, a Cheney, a Bush, an Ollie North, an Ehrlichman, a Casey, a McCarthy, a Delay, a Pat Robertson (he counts because 1 million Republicans voted for him for President), etc. ad nauseum. While it is fair to say that some Democrats have been corrupt (to my great dismay, one Alan Cranston comes to mind) it is not, I think, fair to compare the levels of corruption between the two parties. On any objective scale, the corruption of McCarthy alone surpasses any list of even arguably corrupt Democrats. There is the issue of scale, after all.

Post #236,571

11/30/05 1:24:39 PM

Richard Daley? Dan Rostenkowski?

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #236,572

11/30/05 1:25:21 PM

Think any of those are as bad as Nixon? McCarthy?

Different league.

Post #236,580

11/30/05 1:38:05 PM

Than Nixon? Easily.

Than McCarthy? Going back to that time period you'll find that the Democrats had very strong representation with some rather nasty groups. The first example that I turned up was that senator Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK. He was hardly alone in that.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #236,600

11/30/05 2:16:24 PM

Think again.

How many people died as a result of the Dems you listed illegal activities?

Perhaps you're too young to remember what Tricky Dick did after watching the movie "Patton". Illegal bombings ring any bells?

Post #236,659

by boxley

11/30/05 5:18:25 PM

do lynchings count?

Post #236,669

by jb4

11/30/05 5:42:17 PM

I don't remeber Hizzoner doing any lynching, do you?

Inventing the word "patronage", yes...but lynching...I don't think so!

Post #236,732

by boxley

12/1/05 8:49:04 AM

kkk didnt lynch people?

Post #236,784

by jb4

12/1/05 5:04:41 PM

I don't remember ever hearing of Hizzoner being KKK...

..did you?

Post #236,792

12/1/05 6:55:45 PM

Boxley is thinking of Robert Byrd, I think

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #236,854

12/2/05 10:01:47 AM

Among others, I bet.

Post #236,674

11/30/05 6:02:29 PM

So you're blaming Vietnam on the Republicans?

Let's see. JFK got us into that mess. (JFK also did a lot of other nasty stuff worldwide with the CIA - I've never really understood why he is seen as a hero.) Johnson escalated it like crazy. And the first thing that Nixon did was decrease troop levels and start a slow process of disengagement.

You may wish that he disengaged faster. But he did disengage. If you look at, for instance, US casualty rates, you see that Vietnam slowly ramps up until Johnson came in, at which point it rapidly ramps up to when Nixon came in, after which it ramped down until Nixon left.

I would therefore put more blame for Vietnam atrocities on Democrats than Republicans. People's memories, of course, do the reverse. But that is because the anti-war movement was in full flower while Nixon was at the helm, while people paid much less attention to it while the Democrats were.

What about Nixon's other foreign policy initiatives? The SALT treaty seems pretty important to me. Detente with China was a pretty big step.

As dislikeable as the person, his domestic policies, and Watergate were, his foreign policy doesn't seem that bad to me. Certainly it was a lot better than his predecessors, Johnson in particular.

Cheers,
Ben

PS I consider it an irony that the Republicans are seen as the militaristic party, yet the Democrats got us into 4 of the 5 bloodiest wars in US history.

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #236,676

by drewk

11/30/05 6:21:21 PM

According to a survey of high school students ...

A couple of years ago high school seniors were asked to name the five best presidents, and why. JFK was on many lists, and almost always had the Bay of Pigs listed as one of his accomplishments.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #236,677

11/30/05 6:22:25 PM

Gah

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #236,696

by jb4

11/30/05 11:09:29 PM

Not exactly the first thing...

The first thing Nixon did was to invade Cambodia (no...waiddaminnit, there was no invasion...Cambodia was "incurred"...but I digress).

Then, after he took an immense political beating by the press and anybody to the left of Ghengis Khan, then he decreased troop levels and started a slow process of disengagement.

Post #236,709

12/1/05 2:09:13 AM

Your recollection is wrong

Timetable of troop withdrawals: [link|http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change%20Course/Change-Vietout.html|http://faculty.smu.e...ange-Vietout.html]

According to [link|http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet4.html|http://faculty.smu.e...Change-Viet4.html], his Cambodia invasion was announced on April 30, 1970, at which point 115,500 troops had already been withdrawn (over 20% of the troops that were there when he came into office), and plans had been announced to withdraw another 150,000 troops over the following year.

My comment stands. There is every reason to believe that Nixon fully intended to disengage from the start, and his policies aimed at doing so while achieving his other strategic goals.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #236,721

by Ashton

12/1/05 5:27:24 AM

12/1/05 5:37:10 AM

Forgetting Cambodia?

Ed: I mean, "his alleged mindset" re that operation - Even That Late in the game. Never mind the 'withdrawals' in V. proper; mindset/motivation is, I deem: the essence of any of these games by whichever sociopaths. And the last we ever find out about - always with little evidence. (Still blanks about Lincoln's!)
Hoary McNamara is an exception: still about! and almost-confessing but-not-quite Yet. dribble dribble [/Ed]

"We Can Still WIN This" - is the last, memorable supposition of Tricky Dick's mindset in that sub-rosa invasion. The length of this 'withdrawal' has been the subject of several autopsies.. but it's been awhile since I checked the status of our regular rewrites of 'our history'.

(But then, it's never possible to find The Worst One\ufffd - as we Know we don't know shit about their power-besotted jelloware until long after they've been reviled, retired and redefined. Not even then, but it makes us feel better to suppose we finally have The Story, no?)

Oh, And - I recollect some several reasons to believe that JFK was shocked / Shocked! at the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem; had plans to deescalate US outta that chinese finger-trap -- an attitude as may also have been a factor in his sudden demise -- see? we don't know Shit about the actual machinations du any jour; just select the parts we hope cohere. Did I mention, It's All a Play? (works for me)

Edited by Ashton Dec. 1, 2005, 05:37:10 AM EST

Expand All History

Post #236,733

by boxley

12/1/05 8:52:07 AM

right,jfk wanting to assasinate castro, like shrub vs chavez

Dems are just as guilty of the sleazier stuff.
thanx,
bill

Post #236,752

12/1/05 12:29:03 PM

I didn't forget.

I'm not saying that Nixon was a great guy.

I'm saying that the Democrats were just as bad.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #236,755

by imric

12/1/05 1:16:10 PM

Careful, Ben!

Remember, the "if ye ain't fer 'em yer agin 'em" spirit is alive and well here - accusing the Democrats of flaws implies that you support the Neocon Junta.

*mutter*

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #236,767

by bepatient

12/1/05 2:45:17 PM

Don't I know it

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #236,758

12/1/05 1:34:29 PM

You living in Orange County by any chance?

I've read what I wrote three times now and I can't strain hard enough to get out of it that I "blame Republicans for Viet Nam." Your response was straight out of the Washington Times. You don't like the point, so you create one to argue against crediting another with stating it, then end up with an RW apologist's piece. So, you're a fan of Nixon, are you? Congratulations. If you aren't in Orange County, you really should think of relocating to an area of similar groupthink. I can't really ad any more than jb did, so I'll leave it at that.

Post #236,762

12/1/05 1:58:48 PM

My thought process

You gave a list of corrupt politicians who were Republicans. I responded with a couple of nasty Democrats.

You pointed out that my nasty Democrats didn't kill as many as Nixon. I pointed out that Democrats have the bulk of the responsibility for the atrocities and casualties in the area that you're blasting Nixon for. Now I'm not saying that Nixon was great. I'm just saying that I blame Nixon less for how he handled the mess that he inherited than I do JFK and (particularly) Johnson for how they created it.

I think it perfectly sums up how (un)willing you are to pollute your opinions with facts that you say that your opinion is summed up by what jb4 said - when I've already demonstrated that what jb4 said is wrong.

Since you don't want to look at the links I provided, I'll summarize it. Within 6 months of taking office, Nixon began withdrawing troops from Vietnam at a rate starting around 10,000 troops per month. He slowly ramped this this rate up to 14,400/month by late 1971 and then, after 2/3 of the troops were gone, he increased the rate to about 22,000 troops per month. He kept that rate until less than 10% of troops were left, at which point the pace slackened.

This does not look like someone who was escalating and then only later disengaging after massive public pressure. Instead it looks to me like someone who came in with a plan for how to disengage and stuck to it.

Now I don't like his plan much. It involved being very aggressive (particularly with bombing campaigns) so that the North Vietnamese wouldn't dare launch a massive assault and kill lots of retreating Americans as they withdrew. But the data suggests that he and those close to him are not lying when they say that he had a plan from the start and stuck to it.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #236,809

by Ashton

12/1/05 9:28:10 PM

Re: My thought process

I'd have to agree that Nixon's rate-of-withdrawal appears quite less sinister from the perspective of 35 years. But at the time, there was much gnashing of teeth over what seemed a case of creeping gradualism, not defused by anything resembling forthright WH statements.

And while you may weight the implications less than I - that alleged "we can still WIN this" quote (probably now impossible to verify, for rigorous levels of 'verify') clearly fed doubts re Nixon's actual intentions. I am reconciled to never knowing fershure whether that was really a Nixon quote, or the usual massive dissembling we now expect to be a permanent condition re any player. (Hell, some are now deconstructing even RFK's astoundingly personal and passionate speeches as, mere fake-sincerity.. such is our earned cynicism.) Yet he WOuld have been President: if -

From that handy hindsight, though : today it might well fly - that the whole Cambodia matter was indeed a feint and consistent with just what you suggested: CYA for the dwindling troop numbers. And natch, you would not reveal (any of this) to the world -during- for all obv. reasons.

(Possessed of a film print of Nixon incontrovertibly Saying-That, though - and one which passes modern forensics: I'd return to previous assertion, that withdrawal time and consequent combat deaths - were unnecessarily protracted: in an effort still! "to Win 'something'") A few words can be Crucial, when attempting to fathom the Power-mindset VS the blabwords. Our conundrum.

Ashton

Post #236,850

by drewk

12/2/05 9:55:25 AM

So words are more important than actions?

President A says, "We must win this!" Then he pulls all the troops home.

President B says, "We don't want this fight." Then he sends more troops.

Which is more important: troops or words?

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #236,852

12/2/05 10:01:14 AM

That's a key question, isn't it?

Post #236,924

by Ashton

12/3/05 6:03:01 AM

"The Play's the thing wherein.."

Is this a rhetorical question?
Or variation on, how many legions has the Pope?

Words: pretty sounds, prior to any action.
Actions, inactions next: what was really meant.
Discrepancies: how you tell the magnitude of the lies.
Strife: when lies are observed but there is seen to be no rebuke.
Disintegration: when the fact of no correction produces in most, ennui (or slogans.)

..or something like that.

Post #236,936

by drewk

12/3/05 10:51:38 AM

So you agree: Nixon good, JFK bad?

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #236,985

by Ashton

12/4/05 6:21:08 AM

Only for those who

X) Are shameless provocateurs, though only to the befuddled.
A) Believe that the 'logic' of the law is not pseudo-science, but 'real science'.
B) Believe that recursive definitions of crucial word-symbols may be adequately manipulated by symbolic logic.. (to any imagined purpose, whatsoever.)

(All others must employ Reason, which must be capitalized because it demands quite more than mechanical manipulation.) bad/good - concepts from the World of Opposites; with all attendant baggage.

Hmmm, see all the possible essays sprouting:
Resolved: Hitler was good!

(Debate participants: your average Murican anti-Semite, other brands, Semites, a few dozen other folks who consent to be labelled by race, clan, etc.)

ie Sorry, refuse to answer sound-bites like that, in-kind ;^>
(though it's ~fun, for a skit or something; I thought we'd already done that.)

Post #237,019

by drewk

12/4/05 2:14:12 PM

Damn, was I too transparent?

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #237,021

by boxley

12/4/05 2:18:31 PM

well if you insist :-)

jfk started vietnam, Nixon ended it
jfk destroyed unions Nixon embraced them (teamsters)
in a set of 2 nixon was better
thanx,
bill

Post #237,029

by Ashton

12/4/05 6:23:42 PM

Nah, ~par for Nintendo politico quips \ufffd l\ufffd IWE. :-)

Post #236,863

by SpiceWare

12/2/05 11:36:22 AM

Mike Mikula cartoon

[link|http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/analysis/toons/2005/12/02/mikula/index.html|pick Bush] (requires flash)

Darrell Spice, Jr.                      [link|http://spiceware.org/gallery/ArtisticOverpass|Artistic Overpass]\n[link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore

Post #236,986

by Ashton

12/4/05 6:40:08 AM

How about Caligula, to get us in?

(Remember when he sent the Legions to make war on Neptune; they returning with sea shells / the booty of War?) Surely no more daft a use of military than the Wolfowitzian Dream of "Iraqis waving flags & flowers", as all national services cease; all servicers are fired.

And Cthulhu - to never get us out.

Post #237,066

12/5/05 9:00:05 AM

And again, that has nothing to do with what I said.

I don't know who you are arguing with, but feel free to proceed. And, you *almost* read my post with comprehension.

You pointed out that my nasty Democrats didn't kill as many as Nixon.

Bzzzt. Almost correct. While it is true that Zero is "not as many" as any other positive integer, what I actually pointed out, correctly, was that the illegal activities of the Democrats you listed did not result in any deaths. Nixon, OTOH, did kill many when he illegally bombed Cambodia. And the illegal bombing of Cambodia was all I blamed on Nixon - again, correctly.

HTH.

Post #237,113

12/5/05 7:30:34 PM

Whose view of illegality?

According to the Constitution, we are not allowed to go to war without an act of Congress.

There was no such act for either Korea or Vietnam.

That makes the Democrats actions illegal in at least some people's eyes (including mine) as well. So we again have more deaths attributed to illegal actions from Democrats than Republicans.

If you respond that Vietnam did not legally require an act of war because our actions were caused by the SEATO Treaty and then the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, then I will point out that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution gave authority for the President to to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack ... and to prevent further aggression. Therefore if the North Vietnamese have established military bases in Cambodia that they are striking from, then under that resolution (at least by the interpretation used by both Johnson and Nixon) the President has the authority to bomb those military bases. (Which is exactly how Cambodia got started in early 1969. Which was, I will point out, before the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was repealed by Congress in 1970.)

Either way, both Vietnam and Cambodia share the same legal status. And my blame for the body counts remains higher for the Democrats. (Though I will grant that Nixon made mistakes that helped lead to the Khmer Rouge massacres, I don't lay blame for them on him. Nobody could have forseen that.)

Your turn,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #237,115

by drewk

12/5/05 7:35:03 PM

ICLRPD (new thread)

Created as new thread #237114 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=237114|ICLRPD]

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #237,158

12/6/05 10:07:31 AM

Justice William Douglas count?

His most dramatic effort came in August 1973, after New York Representative Elizabeth Holtzman and others sued to stop Nixon's bombing of Cambodia. Seeking a stay of the bombing until the full Court could rule, ACLU attorneys tracked Douglas down at his Goose Prairie home, and he agreed to hold a hearing at the federal courthouse in Yakima. Douglas granted the stay on August 4, ordering an immediate halt to the bombing, but the eight other members of the Court convened by telephone and reversed Douglas six hours later. (The Cambodia bombing ended on August 15, 1973, as Congress, with Nixon's reluctant agreement, had previously ordered.)

[link|http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=7119|http://www.historyli....cfm?file_id=7119]

Congress does still make the law, right?

How about Nixon himself? The fact that he was willfully deceiving us is clear indication of his feeling guilty, no?

On May 31, 1970, a month after Nixon went on TV to defend the previously secret U.S. bombings and troop movements in Cambodia, asserting that he would not let his nation become "a pitiful, helpless giant," the president met his top military and national security aides at the Western White House in San Clemente, Calif.

Revelation of the operation had sparked protests and congressional action against what many lawmakers from both parties considered an illegal war. Nixon noted that Americans believed the Cambodian operation was "all but over," even as 14,000 troops were engaged across the border in a hunt for North Vietnamese operating there.

In a memo from the meeting marked "Eyes Only, Top Secret Sensitive," Nixon told his military men to continue doing what was necessary in Cambodia, but to say for public consumption that the United States was merely providing support to South Vietnamese forces when necessary to protect U.S. troops.

"That is what we will say publicly," he asserted. "But now, let's talk about what we will actually do."

He instructed: "I want you to put the air in there and not spare the horses. Do not withdraw for domestic reasons but only for military reasons."

"We have taken all the heat on this one." He went on: "Just do it. Don't come back and ask permission each time."

The military chiefs, more than their civilian bosses, expressed worry about how the war was going. "If the enemy is allowed to recover this time, we are through," said Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, the naval operations chief who two months later would become chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Nixon told his aides to plan offensive operations in neutral Laos, continue U.S. air operations in Cambodia and work on a summer offensive in South Vietnam. "We cannot sit here and let the enemy believe that Cambodia is our last gasp."

[link|http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:K_kDPyQwRVkJ:news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051116/ap_on_re_us/nixon_papers+Cambodia+Nixon+illegal&hl=en|http://64.233.167.10...xon+illegal&hl=en]

Really. This is the first time since the early 70's in Orange County that I've heard anyone suggest that maybe the secret bombing in Cambodia that, as generally accepted, lead to Pol's atrocities was legal.

Post #237,184

12/6/05 1:27:17 PM

Sure he counts

Why did you cut the first sentence of that paragraph out? Douglas also repeatedly tried, without success, to get his colleagues to review the legality of U.S. military operations in Vietnam. Which says that Douglas' opinion was that both Vietnam and Cambodia were illegal wars.

Which makes his opinion match mine as I hopefully made clear when I said, That makes the Democrats actions illegal in at least some people's eyes (including mine) as well. (Emphasis added.) If you read more carefully I was not actually arguing that Cambodia was legal. I was arguing that the argument for its legality is identical with the argument for Vietnam's legality.

However I grant you that after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was repealed, and laws were passed saying that the bombing had to stop, that Nixon's shaky claim to legality for Cambodia was bankrupt. But I would also hold that after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was repealed, the status of Vietnam itself became more tenuous.

Therefore I admit that it is possible to claim that Johnson had a better claim to legality than Nixon.

However I still pile the lion's share of the blame for the casualties on Johnson, whether or not he acted illegally.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #237,186

by drewk

12/6/05 1:32:28 PM

Fortunately, we have a phrase for that now

"No controlling legal authority." See? Clears it all right up now, doesn't it?

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #237,264

12/7/05 8:31:42 AM

Okay. You changed course and I didn't with you.

I can read carefully. Can you?

I was never discussing the "legality of Viet Nam", the number of deaths arising from actions taken by Democrats or anything like that. You compared Rostenkowski and Daley's illegal actions with Nixon's. That Nixon's illegal activities caused deaths and Rostenkowski's didn't and neither did Daley's. You couldn't defend your position that Nixon was no less a villain than Rostenkowski and Daley, so you changed your argument by attempting to put words into my mouth.

So, in the final analysis, I guess you can declare victory and go home. If it makes you feel better.

Post #237,280

12/7/05 1:38:47 PM

And so we degenerate further

Rather than vaguely insulting people's reading comprehension, let's go back through the thread, carefully.

[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=236428|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=236428] is the entry point where I made it clear that in my opinion, both Democrats and Republicans are capable of being corrupt. But opportunity is the difference between them.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=236433|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=236433] is where you disagreed by listing a large number of Republicans that you dislike.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=236571|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=236571] is where I gave a couple of Democrats who demonstrate corruption. The first gave us the phrase "voting the graveyard." The second started as the protoge of the first but went into national politics. In the end his corruption became one of the driving forces allowing Republicans to capture Congress.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=236572|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=236572] is where you pointed out that you think that Nixon and McCarthy were worse than the ones on my list.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=236580|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=236580] was my reply. At this point I had not realized that your definition of bad was "killed lots of people", not "corrupted the political process".
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=236600|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=236600] is where you brought southeast Asia into your list of what is bad.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=236674|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=236674] is where I realized where you were going and pointed out that in my opinion Democrats have more responsibility for southeast Asia than Republicans do. In other words Nixon's crimes are matched on the other side of the political aisle. Note that the Democrats who were responsible for southeast Asia were not the ones that I originally listed. (I had originally thought of listing JFK as a corrupt politician, but so many romaticize him that I didn't want to go there.)
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=236758|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=236758] was your response. You demonstrated that you had no idea why I had responded with what I had responded with, and you demonstrated that there were some basic facts about Vietnam that you lacked. Things that were deliberately hidden then, but are obvious now in retrospect.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=236762|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=236762] is where I reacted by explaining my rationale for my response, and by presenting the fairly clear explanation of the case for believing that Nixon started with the intention of leaving Vietnam from the beginning.
In [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=237066|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=237066] you brought legality back into the picture. In other words, "Democrats may be responsible for more death's, but that's OK because it was legal." I probably should have just challenged the relevance of whether their bad actions were legal, but I didn't.
Instead my reaction was [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=237113|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=237113] in which I tried to make it clear that my opinion was that both Democrats and Republicans acted illegally. However if you want accept the official rationale for why what Johnson did was legal, then what Nixon did was also legal.
In [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=237158|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=237158] you pointed me at references to things that made the justification of the actions in southeast Asia illegal.
In [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=237184|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=237184] I acknowledged your point. I said that it was possible to be consistent and believe that Johnson's actions were legal while Nixon's were not. (Incidentally nowhere in this thread do you ever acknowledge that you were mistaken about anything. Period. I've noticed a similar reluctance in other threads from you.) I re-iterated my points that in my eyes both people acted illegally, and whatever the technicalities of the legality of the situation, Democrats still have the lion's share of the blame for the body count.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=237264|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=237264] is your last response. More on that shortly.

So I have hopefully now demonstrated that I am capable of "reading with comprehension", and have hopefully clarified where I was coming from all of the way through the thread. Now here are the significant points that come up in response to what you said.

The question was originally not about Vietnam. It was about whether Democrats were capable of being as bad as Republicans. I still think it is obvious that they can be. In fact the two parties are so similar that over the last few decades they managed to almost completely reverse their constituencies!
If your measure of corruption is, as mine originally was but I never clarified, how badly the people in question corrupted the democratic process, then the Democrats that I named were worse than Nixon. Think 1960. Richard Daley may well have stolen the Presidential election, but Nixon decided to not fight it. Whether or not he stole that one (there is debate on that point), Richard Daley stole tons of elections in Chicago, while to the best of my knowledge Nixon never stole any. (Nixon did try to get an unfair advantage by wiretapping people, etc.)
If your measure of corruption was number of people killed for no good reason due to that President's stupidity, JFK was involved in a whole series of covert operations around the world, one of which wound up with our involvement in Vietnam as escalated by Johnson. So Democrats again come out worse - but the bad ones are not the couple that I originally named.
You keep on focussing on the fact that what Nixon did in Cambodia was illegal. That is why I consider the question of whether Vietnam was legal to be relevant. I also note that, despite the fact that later Cambodia was clearly illegal, when the bombings started in the summer of 1969, the legal justification for Cambodia was identical to the justification for our war in Vietnam.
In general, I wish that you'd stop telling me to move to Orange County. I live too close to there as it is, and you should know that my politics don't agree with theirs.
I think it would be very nice if you were able to acknowledge mistakes from time to time. For instance can you admit that it seems that Nixon did intend to leave Vietnam from the start, and started the process right away?

Regards,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #237,359

12/8/05 2:10:46 PM

Got a mouse in your pocket?

Post #237,366

12/8/05 4:00:24 PM

Why do I bother wasting energy on you?

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #237,748