McNamara Was "Wrong, Terribly Wrong" About Vietnam

Robert McNamara's actions during the Vietnam War were wrong, terribly wrong.

Such was the assessment of a knowledgable critic: McNamara himself.

The Secretary of Defense during the administrations of Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, who has died at age 93, was in his day portrayed as the most brilliant technocrat in an era when brilliant technocrats were worshipped by the media and political elites. Unfortunately, his own tragic trajectory confirmed that the best and the brightest were fallible -- in the extreme.

A Ford Motors "whiz kid" who brought his management skills to Kennedy's Camelot and stayed around long enough to watch the dream crumble under Johnson. When he arrived at the Department of Defense, McNamara admitted that his knowledge of military matters was scant. But he was confident enough -- arguably "arrogant enough" -- to believe he could master the Pentagon with a mumbo-jumbo of management platitudes -- announcing his intention to apply an "active role" management philosophy that involved "providing aggressive leadership questioning, suggesting alternatives, proposing objectives and stimulating progress."

In other words, McNamara winged it.

Badly.

McNamara peddled the fantasy that something happened in the Gulf of Tonkin that justified giving him a blank check for a massive war in southeast Asia. And McNamara cashed the check, flooding Vietnam with U.S. troops -- 535,000 by 1968 -- and bringing tens of thousands of those young soldiers home dead or horribly wounded. The Secretary of Defense had tried to fight a war with statistical theories and anti-communist, Domino-theory fantasies. And the project failed.

McNamara recognized this by late 1967 and made some effort to alter U.S. strategies. But it was too late, for him and for Lyndon Johnson's presidency, which crashed and burned in the Mekong Delta.

Johnson sent McNamara off to run the World Bank -- where the master manager did considerable harm as a pioneering proponent of neo-colonial development schemes that the managerial class continues to inflict upon the poorest people on the planet -- and that was that.

Except for one thing.

McNamara felt guilty about his management of the Vietnam imbroglio.

His best-selling 1995 reflection on the personal and global nightmare that the war in southeast Asia became, In Retrospect was read by many Americans as an apology. While it may have fallen short of what was required, McNamara did admit that he and is compatriots fouled up -- horribly.

Specifically, McNamara wrote: "We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong."

Noam Chomsky offered a tough but fair review of the McNamara memoir: "The one interesting aspect of the book is how little he understood about what was going on or understands today. He doesn't even understand what he was involved in. I assume he's telling the truth. The book has a kind of ring of honesty about it. What it reads like is an extremely narrow technocrat, a small-time engineer who was given a particular job to do and just tried to do that job efficiently, didn't understand anything that was going on, including what he himself was doing."

Almost a decade later, in the documentary Fog of War McNamara would admit to a many more failures. Most importantly, he expanded on his earlier acknowledgement that, "We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose."

McNamara applied that standard to the Bush-Cheney administration's mad misadventure in Iraq, saying that: "(If) we can't persuade other nations with comparable values and comparable interests of the merit of our course, we should reconsider the course, and very likely change it. And if we'd followed that rule, we wouldn't have been in Vietnam, because there wasn't one single major ally, not France or Britain or Germany or Japan, that agreed with our course or stood beside us there. And we wouldn't be in Iraq."

Does getting Iraq right offer absolution for getting Vietnam wrong?

Do admissions of errors ease the burden of those errors?

McNamara lived long enough to raise these questions.

History will answer them, perhaps unkindly.

But we ought not underestimate the significance of McNamara's admission that he was "wrong, terribly wrong."

He displayed a measure of self-awareness, and self-doubt, that is healthy -- and all too rare among major figures in the military-industrial complex about which Dwight Eisenhower warned about on the eve of Robert McNamara's confirmation as Secretary of Defense, and of which McNamara was an embodiment.

Consider the prospect that Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld will ever admit to having been "wrong, terribly wrong" about Iraq and you begin to get a measure of the meaning of the former Defense Secretary's late-in-life admissions. It can easily be argued that he was insufficiently repentant, and insufficiently insightful. But there was something refreshing about the fact that McNamara felt compelled to try and explain himself.

Comments (119)

1. Amazing how a simple rewrite gives us such a clear picture of the failed presidency of B. Hussein Obama the classic leftwingnut apologist now presiding over the biggest failure of presidency in this nations history!

   -----------------

   "Unfortunately, his own tragic trajectory confirmed that the best and the brightest were fallible -- in the extreme, and sadly Obama was neither!

   But he was confident enough -- arguably "arrogant enough" -- to believe he could master the job of President of the U.S.A.with a mumbo-jumbo of rhetorical management platitudes -- announcing his intention to apply an "active role" management philosophy that involved "providing aggressive leadership questioning, suggesting alternatives, proposing objectives and stimulating regression of national economic gains."

   What Obama looks like is an extremely narrow technocrat, a small-time engineer who was given a particular job to do and just tried to do that job efficiently, didn't understand anything that was going on, including what he himself was doing."

   He is most famous for talking softly and carrying a BIG telepromtor!

   Yea, that would be Obama not McNamara who is now sadly just another dead Demoncrat presiding over a previous Demoncrat national tragedy!

   Posted by BigPasture at 07/06/2009 @ 10:57pm

2. "Amazing how a simple rewrite gives us such a clear picture of the failed presidency of B. Hussein Obama the classic leftwingnut apologist now presiding over the biggest failure of presidency in this nations history!"

   Ermmmmmm, let's see here. The President Obama's only been in office for what 6 months, and you're already stating (your opinion ONLY) that he's a failed president? How quickly we forget. Didn't we just live through 8 years of a proven failed one?

   Posted by coldteablues at 07/06/2009 @ 11:27pm

3. Dear Mr.Big Idiot,

   (... May I call you that ..?? It just feels right )

   Your Fox News Talking points are right on, as well as that ditto-head drivel you are being spoon fed daily on your AM dial... ( just what are that sloven, drug addicted baffoons credentials anyway..?? )

   I have to take this opportunity to thank you for endless hours of amusement.. Your kind, (and yes I'm stereotyping here) are nothing but jesters for most...

   You need to turn off the Fox, shut down the AM, get out of the trailer, and/or off the reservation (or both) and meet some people... Really man (if you are indeed a man)... Get Out More !!

   Your a Sad, sad individual, but i think deep down, beneath the layers of jimmy dean ( or whatever the store brand is ) induced cellulite, you know this.

   Your Pal, Scot

   Hope to Hear from You Soon !! Take Care!

   Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/07/2009 @ 12:38am

4. Posted by BigPasture at 07/06/2009 @ 10:57pm |

   Funny...considering your boy, Chimpy, failed to learn McNamara's lesson even though hundreds of different analyses of the folly of engaging in pre-emptive war from both the perspective of lost lives and the ultimate cost to the nation domestically in terms of unnecessary national debt accumulation were in abundance from when he was sticking oosh up his nose until his unfortunate "election".

   Iraq: the most expensive dysfunctional 'democracy' money can buy.

   Posted by snowball777 at 07/07/2009 @ 12:41am

5. Of course the Bush administration, along with too many in the MSM and the population, failed to learn from the Vietnam fiasco--or simply refused to learn. This has been obvious for half a decade, even rising to the level of a sad truism.

   Now, we have the problem--and it is an extremely serious problem--that the Obama administration is continuing and even escalating the wars launched in ignorance and/or rejection of the terrible lessons of Vietnam. Moreover, there is no guarantee that this administration will not seek out new wars in a potential over-reaction to developments in such countries as Pakistan (whose territory has already been subject to drone attacks authorized by Bush and by Obama and often incurring tragically high "collateral damage").

   What will it take to stop this military machine? The democratic will of the American people has not been sufficient, even in the case of Obama. Will it take the bankruptcy of the United States? Or the utter collapse of our society?

   Posted by feinfein at 07/07/2009 @ 02:05am

6. When I think of McNamara I think of arrogance--he really set the style for the subsequent generations of "wise men" who go to Washington to advise Presidents (see Rumsfeld, Casey, Summers and countless others). The style is basically baffle them with bullshit, bully the opposition into submission, and never, ever admit you made a mistake.

   McNamara spoke at Harvard when In Retrospect came out back in '95, it was a pretty extraordinary event, you could tell that on one level he was trying to be honest about the historical record but at the same time his trademark arrogance and enormous ego came out in some of his remarks.

   On the other hand I have to give him props for meetings with his former Vietnamese enemies, and subsequently admitting that he didn't know jack about the country or its people.

   Also, you have to give him some points for agreeing to take part in The Fog of War--what an awesome documentary.

   Mac thought he was the smartest cats in the alley, and these last few years it was pretty clear that he held a pretty dim view of the knuckleheads who've been running the show lately. So another point there.

   On balance? About 7 points in favor, but over 58,000 against. You lost, Mac.

   Posted by vlinties at 07/07/2009 @ 03:37am

7. I'm sure Mac's demise has Colin Powell thinking hard about how he wants to spend the next decade or so.

   Posted by vlinties at 07/07/2009 @ 04:08am

8. So if Pol Pot said he'd made a great mistake in murdering 2 million people, he'd be as "redeemed" as McNamara for his 3 million?

   Posted by godistwaddle at 07/07/2009 @ 05:24am

9. One of the things I find most interesting about McNamara is that he did not hate the war protesters, did not call them traitors. He actually invited them into his home and talked to them.

   Compare that to our new neo-cons.

   godstwaddle has a small point, but the recognition of mistakes does put McNamara above Pol, and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush, not to mention our resident evil bloggers.

   I think I will go with Vlinties, 7 for, many against. If Bob had been more public about his opposition to Bush's Vietnam, I could have given him many more props, but he kept quiet. Too bad for the Iraqis and the American military.

   It is up to His Noodly Goodness to judge Mac now.

   Posted by crabwalk at 07/07/2009 @ 06:27am

10. Really you guys give RIO/Big Posture too much credit.

    He basically operates like this-

    "Democrats are bad....fill in with rhetoric."

    His world-view is that everything negative in the country is to be blamed on one political party and its members. Not even "post-60s Democrats" or "liberals"...just anybody associated with that party.

    And that's it. He doesn't even think about it.

    My theory?....the former "Mrs. RIO" run O-F-T (Little "O Brother" ref) with a Democratic politician....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 06:35am

11. Thinking about McNamara's career and Nichols comments, the former of which are cataloged in a number of newer books out there which I'm sure Nichols hasn't read,I'm reminded of the old adage about the babbling of those not in the know vs the quiet confidence of those who are.

    Guess which side Nichol's is on?

    There is ALWAYS more to the story than the agenda driven wishful thinking of a journalist bent on maintaining his "unconventional wisdom."

    Try "The McNamara Ascendency 1961-1965 Vol 5 GPO 2006 honest view of the man and his times. You'll not find the notion, for example, of a dastardly attack with gunboats by the evil NVA. Nor, however, will you find the liberal trite about the whole affair being some secret conspiracy designed to drag us into the war.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/07/2009 @ 07:17am

12. In all these analyses of how "wrong" Vietnam was, nobody on the left side of the political spectrum ever blames the communists.

    Now it is contended that the "domino" theory had no merit and was not reality. But had we not made a stand in Vietnam, who knows?

    Once we left Vietnam in an honorable truce, the communists grabbed the South within a couple of years because they knew we would not oppose them, and then there was the massive genocide in Cambodia....so it is not entirely true that no dominoes fell....but no more dominoes after that.

    But that was after virtually a 10 year effort in Vietnam.

    The reality is that at that time we were in a cold war with the Soviets. Soviet, and separate from the Soviets, Chinese communism sought to expand communism world wide.

    They got involved in Vietnam and in other places in the world.

    It is not true that we were in Vietnam to expand American influence and force the Vietnamese to be like us. We were there to stop the communism.

    It was not a civil war. The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong would not have had the wherewithal to fight without Soviet or Chinese support.

    The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and not a model democracy or any kind of democracy back then, but nevertheless the communists had no business trying to impose communism upon them.

    South Korea and Tiawan were not model democracies at their inception, either....there are much more so today.

    I have just read another book about Lyndon B. Johnson, again NOT written by a Conservative.

    There was a lot of anguish about the Vietnam situation.

    It was not appropriate to just walk away and leave Vietnam, and signal to the Soviets and Chinese we would just give up.

    To be continued....

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 07:28am

13. The idea of walking away from war or not getting into war against evil to begin with plays well amongst the left on this website and elsewhere, but it is not advisable to follow that course if a nation of free people wants to survive against evil and those who try to impose it.

    But because of the threat of the Soviets and the Chinese (who were not allied but actually at odds with each other back then) over our heads, we could not really escalate the war and go for a massive effort to win quickly, either.

    That was perceived by many in the Johnson administration, including LBJ, as likely to create Soviet or Chinese retaliation that could lead the world to the brink of nuclear war.

    We were between a rock and a hard place in Vietnam.

    I read a book by Colin Powell where he said that (I don't remember his exact words, this is my paraphrasing of it) if you get into a fight you should go all out to win or not get in at all.

    That makes sense but it was not reality in the 1960's.

    Vietnam was a national tragedy and created a lot of anguish for a lot of people. But it was a situation created by the communists, in their efforts to expand the communism as much as they could.

    In retrospect, after the passage of many years, it is continually written that Vietnam was "wrong". We were just supposed to not have gotten involved. There would have been no "penalty" to pay if we had not...according to the "experts"....

    It makes me angry that people that promote that do not look at Vietnam in the context of the time it occurred, and that they NEVER blame the communists, and that they promote we should learn the wrong lessons.

    One of those "lessons" is that we were not supposed to have gone into Iraq.

    To be continued.....

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 07:37am

14. But those teaching that we were supposed to have learned "lessons" from Vietnam by not going into Iraq apparently forget that Saddam would have been back to making WMD, connecting up with terrorists, and some of those terrorists would have used the WMD to kill millions of us.

    And those advocating we should not have gone into Iraq forget that most everybody, including Democrats, including foreign governments, including Saddam's own generals, believed he did have WMD. We do not know when Saddam did not have WMD anymore.

    We do know Saddam intentionally deceived the world into thinking he still had WMD, and it seems he must have realized, reluctantly, that at some point he would have had to "allowed" the world to conclude he had no more WMD (and the Blix inspections would have done this) so that he could get back into the game again.

    Certainly the British believed he had WMD. It is promoted now that George W. Bush lied about all this and those Democrats who said Saddam was a threat were just duped by the President because they were making a good faith effort to support their country.

    That is nonsense....many people concluding Saddam was a threat were relying on their own intelligence...not dependent on data from President Bush..

    Tony Blair believed Saddam to be a threat and that he needed to be stopped. I am sure he knew full well he would face daily crucifixion from many in his own country for conducting military campaigns against Iraq, and that he would be labled as George W. Bush's "poodle".

    He went into Iraq anyway. He must have reliably believed it was the right thing to do, knowing the flak he would be getting afterwords.

    It is a good thing that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair did not learn "lessons" from Vietnam.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 07:46am

15. Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 07:46am

    Yep, if we hadn't invaded Iraq, Saddam would have...

    built a secret Moon base in a few years and used it as a base of operations.

    It's true. Even though there was no evidence of him ever having a manned space program, clearly it was one of his intentions given the increased rocketry developments he was working on before the Gulf War.

    And many experts can tell you that a base on the Moon offers numerous strategic advantages, that a madman clearly in bed with Al Qaeda would find useful.

    Thankfully, Dubya saw that coming and invaded and established the Iran-friendly Shiite government (at only a trillion dollars in debt and 4100+ dead GIs)....

    otherwise, Saddam would be up there RIGHT NOW, at the Sea of Tranquility, dropping nukes on us and us having no way to defend ourselves.

    and anybody who doesn't believe that is hopelessly naive.

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 07:55am

16. Mask,

    Whatever you say. Far be it from me to question you.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 08:57am

17. Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 08:57am

    Can you PROVE that Saddam Hussein couldn't have developed a manned lunar-capable space program if we had "left him alone" for a few more years, SJCHER?

    Can you?

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 09:31am

18. Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 07:46am |

    Hey, Cherm...consider the possibility that the lesson may have been that dipping your toes into such an "overseas contingency" was the bigger mistake.

    How would Iraq look now if Bush had:

    a) finished in Afghanistan first

    b) listened to Shinseki about troop levels

    c) an exit strategy before 2008

    And please don't ever suggest that we should take Britain's advice about the ME. They are the primary architects of the clusterf-ck you see before you today and have proven themselves idiots with respect to FP several times over.

    Posted by snowball777 at 07/07/2009 @ 09:31am

19. It was not a civil war. The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong would not have had the wherewithal to fight without Soviet or Chinese support.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 07:28am

    SJCHER: Not saying who's right, who's wrong, but Mac said exactly the opposite in his later years, citing the failure to realize that it WAS a civil war as a reason for the debacle in Southeast Asia.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/07/2009 @ 10:05am

20. "We were fighting -- and we didn't realize it -- a civil war. Now, true, obviously there were Soviet and Chinese influence and support and no question that the communists were trying to control South Vietnam, but it was basically a civil war."

    Robert S. McNamara, in interview on CNN

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/07/2009 @ 10:09am

21. Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/07/2009 @ 10:09am

    Well, now, schnell, let's be fair...maybe SJCHER has some special insight into Vietnam that McNamara didn't.

    Let's see...first....SJ, how old were you when the Tet Offensive happened?

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 10:56am

22. Mask,

    In my opinion Mr. McNamara himself is forgetting the context I discuseed earlier, the threat of Soviet expansion of communism world wide.

    He is doing the same thing I complained about earlier, looking at the past through today's perspective.

    Who is to say that if we had not made a stand in Vietnam that the dominoes would not have fallen? We don't know. Mr. McNamara may have claimed to know but it is a moot point now regarding him, as of yesterday he is not capable of commenting further on this issue. Thus we know all we will ever know about what he thinks.

    You mentioned the Tet Offensive. As you know, that was a major military defeat for the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. They have said so themselves, I have read it many times, most recently in the book about Lyndon Johnson.

    But with the Tet Offensive they got the long term win, as people like Walter Cronkite declared the war unwinnable, and the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong realized if they stayed the course the anti-war movement in America was gaining more and more momentum.

    As far as my age, I was fairly old by that time, even older now... I think in 1968 I was about 97 years of age.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 11:15am

23. sjchermak...... I get it.

    "Stuck around St. Petersburg when I saw it was time for a change.... Killed the Czar and his ministers, Anastasia screamed in vain..... Rode a tank, held a general's rank, when the Blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..... Pleased to meet you, hope you guessed my name!"

    Posted by DejaVu at 07/07/2009 @ 11:47am

24. Pointless war,but they did have some of the best marijuana that I have ever smoked.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2009 @ 11:51am

25. Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 11:15am

    Well, SJCHER, again....given YOUR insight into Vietnam in the 1960s, we must figure you were in your 30s or even 20s.

    Unless you were some kind of "Doogie Hauser" savant, with in-depth knowledge of both geo-politics and SouthEast Asian cultural and historical trends...which SUPPORTED "early McNamara", but could refute "old McNamara"....you had to have atleast been a well-versed in what was happening back then as an adult....given your proclamations on "What Vietnam Was Really About"?

    So....how old were you in 1968?

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 11:53am

26. Mask,

    I am sorry, I am old so I got my age wrong.

    I think I was about 705 years old in 1968.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 12:00pm

27. Mask,

    Typo above.... I meant to say I was 1968 years old in 705 and thus I am too old to do the math on how old I was in 1968 or how old I am now.

    But as you can see I have been around the block a lot.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 12:02pm

28. Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 12:02pm

    SJ, ballpark it if you feel it would breach your Internet privacy....just say "In my 30s" or "In my late 20s" or "In my early 40s".

    Again, given how McNamara over 40 years rejected his 1960s view of Vietnam.....yet over the past 40 you have maintained yours, we can atleast start with....how old you were in 1968, can't we?

    I mean, I can't think of any reason you wouldn't want to let us know how your adult years during the Vietnam Era played into your thoughtful analysis of "what it really meant".

    BTW, if you didn't fight in the war, don't worry....not going to call you a "chickenhawk". Unfair charge, so don't worry.

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 12:06pm

29. McNamara has been a joke ever since he began the traitorous backpedaling in 67.

    He never fought the war to win. Then tried to excuse his incompetence by apologizing.

    The war was right and time has proven out that fact.

    It is primarily the apologist anti-American left considers Vietnam a wrong war just as they do with Iraq.

    I resented them then, and I haven't changed my view; if anything, with the passage of time and further illunination on what back scenes traitorism they were conducting, I resentment has grown.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 12:10pm

30. Mask,

    It is not that I am concerned about Internet privacy.

    I just can not think of any reason that my age matters with regard to this discussion.

    Your track record of game playing is pretty solid. You will go off on wild tangents in order to be a devil's advocate (but not, apparently, a Devil's advocate supporter of Martin Brodeur).

    I did not fight in the war, they had started the draft lottery the year before I was 18 but the war was winding down, fewer people were being drafted and my lottery number was not low.

    I would have gone if I had been called, and unless I was killed soon after I got there, after 4 months I would have had more time in Vietnam than the war hero, John F. Kerry.

    (just thought I would throw some miscellaneous sarcasm in)

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 12:33pm

31. CHERMAK,

    You left out the fact that the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag operation.

    This was admitted to by McNamara himself.

    So we should have stayed out of that war.

    All the other points about battling communism are rendered meaningless unless you think that we should battle communism wherever it exists.

    From recent events in world history, we can see that it (communism) usually implodes all by itself, to be replaced by a pseudo-capitalism.

    Both you and BigPasture made no attempt to post an opinion based on facts, but it's always fun to read.

    Posted by ficheye at 07/07/2009 @ 12:34pm

32. But of course, although Mask says Mask won't (and I take Mask's word on this), probably some other rabid anti-war leftist will post in and say I should have volunteered and that I am a chickenhawk, etc. etc.

    And now Cccomfo1 will post in and say I am stereotyping and being bigoted by generalizing and labeling ith use of the word leftist, etc.

    I am not guilty of that but I do call a penalty on myself for Swiftboating in my post above. Guilty as charged.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 12:36pm

33. It is primarily the apologist anti-American left considers Vietnam a wrong war just as they do with Iraq.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 12:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    most americans are a-political. of those who participate and know some history (beyond the career of a boy diddling, overhyped, self absorbed, peddler of lowbrow crap culture) most seem to agree that vietnam was in the 20/20 view of hindsight a bad idea.

    so thats a good number of folks. not sure they are all the anti-american left.

    "anti-american left"...hmm...

    funny...there's a certain segment of the american left with which i disagree. they're arguments have actually driven me more crazy at times than that of hardcore rightwingers. i call them SLA'ers, after miss hearst's kidnappers...

    but of course my concern is more the anti-american right, secessionists like the babbling milf larouche of the right and the governor of texas, gun toting right wing militias, cabals of high level ideologues willing to steal elections and navigate our country into costly, needless wars and sell us downstream for the profit of them and their narrowly defined ideological and class interests.

    oh well. so we differ...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/07/2009 @ 12:48pm

34. Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 12:33pm

    So as a teenager, you were gifted with insights into the Vietnam Conflict....that men in high positions, like McNamara, were not?

    Interesting. I guess I was right with the "Doogie Houser" comment, huh?

    What CIA briefings on "Soviet expanisionism in SouthEast Asia" were you reading in high school?

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 1:09pm

35. "I resented them then, and I haven't changed my view; if anything, with the passage of time and further illunination on what back scenes traitorism they were conducting, I resentment has grown."----------Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 12:10pm

    A 45 year old, ever-increasing grudge.

    Telling, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 1:10pm

36. BTW, Larry, for purposes of total clarity...

    you should note to everybody that you did NOT fight in Vietnam, but were on "super-duper secret Navy spy missions NOT in Southeast Asia".

    right?

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 1:11pm

37. "In my opinion Mr. McNamara himself is forgetting the context I discuseed earlier, the threat of Soviet expansion of communism world wide. "SJCHERMAK

    If you had ever listened to McNamara you would know that your "opinion" is totally disconnected from McNamaras views. He is/was more aware than you of Soviet expansion. He was in on The Bay of Pigs debacle, he was in the rooms of power when the Soviets moved missiles into Cuba, he was around when the communists moved into Korea, he was around when Stalin took E Germany.

    As far as "the anti-war left", that seems to be the majority of Americans in 1972, and the majority now that see Vietnam for the waste it was. As a country, we still have not finished dealing with the aftermath of that police action. There are still Americans dealing with the effects of that war on them and their families, not to mention the millions of Vietnamese.

    Now, on to your hypthosisisisssiss...

    I will do what you do...

    If the US had not taken over from the French, and the French had not played Who can reap rewards off of Indochina the bestest, it is quite likely that the Kmer would not have had a base from which to launch their genocide.

    As it is, communist Vietnam seems to fit the plans of American capitalists just fine in 2009. It is a source of cheap labor. All that they ask for from a Supplier. That could have come 15 years sooner.

    So there! I just proved it.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/07/2009 @ 1:12pm

38. Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 12:10pm

    Damn representative government! How dare people express their views!!!

    Damn that civilian leadership!! If only they had flattened Vietnam, cleared it of people and started over...damn civilian leadership!

    If only military had gotten out of Bushs, Cheneys and Rumsfelds way, the civilians would have wrapped up Iraq in weeks, maybe months, certainly not years. Damn Shinseki, Scowcroft, Powell, Hoar and the other weak kneed military types!!

    Wait...

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/07/2009 @ 1:18pm

39. crabwalk,

    You said ".....As far as "the anti-war left", that seems to be the majority of Americans in 1972....."

    !!!!?????

    OK, then, please explain how Richard Nixon won re-election in a landslide over George McGovern, in 1972.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 1:20pm

40. Mask,

    You pose these questions:

    "So as a teenager, you were gifted with insights into the Vietnam Conflict....that men in high positions, like McNamara, were not? ....."

    ".....What CIA briefings on "Soviet expanisionism in SouthEast Asia" were you reading in high school?....."

    I was not involved in any CIA briefings. Our high school did not provide CIA briefings as part of the cirruculum.

    I guess it was stuff like this, instead:

    ===========================

    "......"We are Bolsheviks!" he declared pugnaciously. "We stick firmly to the Lenin precept--don't be stubborn if you see you are wrong, but don't give in if you are right." "When are you right?" interjected First Deputy Premier Mikoyan--and the crowd laughed. Nikita plunged on, turning to the Western diplomats. "About the capitalist states, it doesn't depend on you whether or not we exist. If you don't like us. don't accept our invitations, and don't invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or not. history is on our side. We will bury you!"....."

    Nikita Khrushchev, November 18, 1956.

    ===================

    It is kind of obvious what was meant by that. What part of that don't you understand, if you don't?

    I didn't need Robert McNamara to interpret it for me.

    Actually the response was given a few years later, on June 26, 1963.

    ...to be continued

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 1:34pm

41. "It is primarily the apologist anti-American left considers Vietnam a wrong war just as they do with Iraq. "posted by All knowing Larry @ 12:10pm

    The Harris Poll® #74, October 6, 2004

    "And now a question about the wars the United States has fought. Do you think that each of the following was worth fighting and the loss of life involved, or not?"

    Vietnam War (1955-1975)

    Worth fighting and loss of life- 17%

    Not worth fighting and loss of life - 62%

    Not sure-20%

    Iraq "war"

    War in Iraq (2003-present)

    Worth fighting and loss of life- 38%

    Not worth fighting and loss of life- 47%

    Not sure- 14%

    "And do you think that each of the following wars was successful for the United States, or not successful?"

    Vietnam:

    Succesful- 6%

    not succesful- 65%

    Neither- 14%

    Not sure- 14%

    War in Iraq (2003-2004)

    Succesful- 24%

    Not succesful- 43%

    Neither-15%

    Not sure-18%

    So, either "the left" includes a large majority of Americans, or Larry is full of himself, again.

    As far as I can tell, Larry is truly omniscient and infallible. Like BP, all evils can be traced to "the left", his "side" bears ZERO, NADA, not a whit of responibility for ANYTHING that has or might go wrong, anywhere, anytime. It is either the fault of unions, pacifists, teachers (that belong to unions, regulations etc etc etc.

    What was it gOd said about logs, eyes and false witness?

    Darn, if only we had a biblical scholar around!

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/07/2009 @ 1:34pm

42. BTW, Larry, for purposes of total clarity...

    you should note to everybody that you did NOT fight in Vietnam, but were on "super-duper secret Navy spy missions NOT in Southeast Asia".

    right?

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 1:11pm

    Only you use the term "super-duper", I don't.

    And you are wrong. I said that I was in SE Asia among other places.

    Also, you act like we did not get a wide range of briefings in Navy Intel.

    As I've said before, people like you are so unaware of what was going on in the 60's and 70's in the military and in the very real cold war battles that have seldom made the light of day. Fortunately, most of us care more about country and duty than glory and don't write supposed "Tell All" books, prefering to keep the integrity of American intelligence and associated warfare intact.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 1:34pm

43. continued from above, the response to Khrushchev:

    ===================

    "......There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin......"

    ".....Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.

    All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner."....."

    President John F. Kennedy - June 26, 1963

    =============

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 1:36pm

44. "As I've said before, people like you are so unaware of what was going on in the 60's and 70's in the military and in the very real cold war battles that have seldom made the light of day."

    Yes, like Mai Lai, the Pheonix squadron, the murder of nuns in S. America, ....

    How about the latest tapes from Nixon...abortion would be ok if a "black and white" got together.

    The reality is that as cold war business comes to light over the years, the USA does not look as enlightened as Larry would have us believe. Look at some of the thugs propped up by us...

    Suharto

    Pinochet

    Noriega

    The Shah

    Batista

    on and on and on and on

    I know I won't change your mind Larry, parachutes only work when open.. but it is fun playin w'ich-ya.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/07/2009 @ 1:39pm

45. Mask,

    And no, President Kennedy did not say he was a jelly donut.

    I have now checked into that, and there was this myth and joke that what he said was not grammatically correct in German and he said he was a jelly donut and not that he was a Berliner.

    But, his remark was correct because of the context it was given.

    If he had said Ich bin Berliner, then the jelly donut issue would not have come up but then THAT would have been incorrect for him to phrase it that way.

    That is because President Kennedy was not an actual resident of Berlin, and Ich bin Berliner is only correct in German for one who is actually a resident of Berlin, not one who is expressing solidarity with and commonness with the people of Berlin.

    Just trying to keep up with whatever you may offer up, Mask.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 1:43pm

46. Richard Nixon won re-election in a landslide over George McGovern, in 1972.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 1:20pm

    How did that work out for the country?

    If only the damned liberal media had not exposed Nixon as the crook and scumbag that he was!!!

    ----

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 1:36pm

    mmmmm... jelly donuts...mmmmm

    best served with nuoc mom, sa and kim chee.

    mmmmm, tasty

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/07/2009 @ 1:43pm

47. Here's the acknowledged 'architect' of the Vietnam war admitting that mistakes were made, and what do we hear?

    We hear from conservatives who seem to know more than he did, who seem to be telling us that something else is true even if McNamara says something different. Is he lying, even in death?

    We don't hear about the Gulf of Tonkin, we don't hear much except for some totalitarian smelling excuses for why it was all well and right.

    But we DID find out that CHERMAK read a second book this year. We find out that 'Mr. Cluster Bomb' did not serve in the 'Nam. I feel better.

    Posted by ficheye at 07/07/2009 @ 1:44pm

48. What do you think SJ, would abortion be OK if a "black and white"...well, you know?

    Sorry to jump your MASK block, SJ.

    Good thing you and Bush stopped Saddam from producing an Earth bound meteor!

    Whew, that would have been one BIG smoking gun!!

    BTW, how much more in tax were you willing to pay to keep those Iraqi nukes out of Buffalo? none? Thought so.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/07/2009 @ 1:56pm

49. Well, now Larry says he DID serve in Nam. Information is hard to get sometimes, so I amend my statement. Did CHERMAK read more than two books?

    It may be true.

    Posted by ficheye at 07/07/2009 @ 2:00pm

50. Some excellent postings here by ficheye and crabwalk, where they display they have lost the arguments about Vietnam, by thrashing around, engaging in sacrasm, and spitting out boilerplate leftist remarks.

    Crabwalk wins the MASK award for switching the subject, to a comment about Nixon and how things turned out.

    However, crabwalk had said the majority of the U.S. was anti-war left in 1972. That was the original issue, not how Nixon turned out. Once that (the original issue) is disproven, as it was, then SWITCH! and change the subject on the fly.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 2:08pm

51. sjchermak-It is not possible to lose an argument about Nam since all one can do is express an opinion and both sides can list facts to support their opinions..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2009 @ 2:15pm

52. Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 1:34pm

    Larry, who got more briefings on Vietnam during the war...

    you or Robert McNamara?

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 2:18pm

53. Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 1:34pm

    I know subtleties often allude you...and as with Khruschev even CONTEXT does...

    but perhaps you don't realize that Nikita wasn't talking about "domino theories" and "Soviet expanisionism via coup attempts"...

    but his view of the inevitability of world-wide socialism. Which obviously was in error.

    "We will bury you" doesn't mean "We're going to conquer the world" either militarily or by proxies, but in "historical terms". Your 1970s high school history class (aka ditto-head) interpretation is completely flawed.

    BTW, if you don't believe me...read the WHOLE statement by Khruschev.

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 2:23pm

54. Posted by ficheye at 07/07/2009 @ 1:44pm

    It's also a bit odd. Remember these are the guys that in the 80s and 90s (especially with the Gulf War) were promising people "No more Vietnams...we'll win it and let the generals run the war".....even to citing Colin Powell and his "Doctrine".

    Now, why would they have to say "We'll win it"....if we "won it" in Vietnam in 1973...as they're now claiming?

    Their historical revisionism has reached the point where they're even contradicting REAGAN and Bush-41, who atleast admitted that we LOST the Vietnam War. But these guys want to claim that we "won it" under Nixon's Paris Peace Accords....typically laying later blame for the Fall of Saigon on the 1975 Democratic Congress (rarely Gerald Ford).

    BTW, Nixon wasn't running on a "We'll win it" platform in 1972...but a "Peace With Honor" platform....not EXACTLY the same thing, is it?

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 2:28pm

55. Mask,

    Fascinating....how could Gerald Ford be blamed for the fall of Saigon?

    Democrats in Congress had put in place prohibitions on the U.S. even supplying aid to South Vietnam.

    Also, how come the communists never come in for any criticism on lefty web sites? As you know, there was an honorable truce in Vietnam in 1973. The war was over.

    After that, there is nothing that the U.S. did that could be used as a pretext or excuse for going back to fighting again, as the communists did.

    The reasons the communists did go back to fighting are:

    1. communiststs are dishonorable people who can not be trusted.

    2. They knew they could get away with it.

    But, since the communists were wrong to go back to fighting, how come there is never any blame or criticism from the left for their having done that?

    After all, it is the left that says you do not go to war, you must always give peace a chance. Some lefties will then say if you are in jeopardy of being conquered then maybe it is OK to defend yourself, but other lefties, the real pacifist crowd, think it is better to lay down like sheep and die honorably.

    And that is if you are attacked. If you are not attacked, the left says you can never go to war, not even to prevent future bad terror and agression.

    But the communists went to war, with no excuse for doing so, after an honorable truce in 1973, yet no criticism from the left.

    How come, lefties?

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 2:38pm

56. sjchermak-There are very conservative pacifists.In order to claim that you are fighting against possible future aggression you must first show that the people in question have the ability to do something and the people of Viet Nam had no ability to do anything and still do not.Had France not gone into Nam in order to exploit them the war never would have happened nor would there have been communists taking over and they would have continued to live the way they had for centuries..When France ran away we should have just left the country alone to do whatever they were going to do to each other since they had no ability to do anything to us or anyone else, at that time...

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2009 @ 2:59pm

57. McNamara has been a joke ever since he began the traitorous backpedaling in 67.

    He never fought the war to win. Then tried to excuse his incompetence by apologizing.

    The war was right and time has proven out that fact.

    It is primarily the apologist anti-American left considers Vietnam a wrong war just as they do with Iraq.

    I resented them then, and I haven't changed my view; if anything, with the passage of time and further illunination on what back scenes traitorism they were conducting, I resentment has grown.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 12:10pm

    OK.

    But I gotta note that this "joke" of a man was so trusted by the establishment in this country (from Ford Motor Company, to the Army Air Forces of WWII (where he basically firebombed Tokyo via Curtis LeMay), to the World Bank. These are no pinko, leftist operations we're talking here (Ford, are you kidding me?) who put their eminent, respective, collective trusts in this "joke" of a man.

    Interesting.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/07/2009 @ 3:02pm

58. And that comes from a native Detroiter. McNamara back in the day was a BIG Detroit guy, one of the "bright young men" brought in by the Deuce (Henry Ford II) to save Ford from Harry Bennett and crew after the old man had gone nuts.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/07/2009 @ 3:04pm

59. 1. communiststs are dishonorable people who can not be trusted.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 2:38pm

    I think you are mixing up communists and viet cong and north vietnamese. They are separate. Was the vietnam war between communists and capitalists? Or between the U.S. and the viet cong and North Vietnam who were/are communist?

    Blanket statmements like yours above are pure ignorance. Some communists cannot be trusted, some capitalists cannot be trusted.

    The pre-emptive war doctrine you are supportive of is the same doctrine which Hitler used to justify the invasion of Poland and start WW2 and his justification for the Holocaust. It is sad that you can't see that. You would probably support the genocide of all muslims on the insane rationale that muslims like communists cannot be trusted and they may commit future acts of terrorism. INSANITY.

    Posted by Extraneous at 07/07/2009 @ 3:34pm

60. Larry, who got more briefings on Vietnam during the war...

    you or Robert McNamara?

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 2:18pm

    Irrelevant. It's what you do with the information.

    McNamara never fought to win the war. He betrayed the troops as did Nixon and Kissinger.

    McNamara's post war mea culpa merely means the man had no core beliefs.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 3:48pm

61. Extraneous,

    You are engaging in classic moral equivalence.

    It doesn't appear you can see a clear difference between communism and capitalism.

    And you mention pre-emptive war and the Nazis.

    You are the one who is blind here, because you can not see the difference between Nazis conducting war and the United States and United Kingdom conducting war.

    The invasion of Iraq was pre-emptive war. The Nazis engaged in what they considered pre-emptive war.

    The Nazis conducted war to oppress some people and totally eliminate others.

    The United States and United Kingdom conducted war in Iraq to stop opression and threat of future mass destruction.

    Your moral equivalence renders you unable to see the difference.

    You then make a blanket statement, that I would probably support the genocide of all muslims.

    Another hypocritical lecture from a leftist, where the leftist engages in the exact same behavior that the leftist professes to condemn.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 3:50pm

62. you should note to everybody that you did NOT fight in Vietnam, but were on "super-duper secret Navy spy missions NOT in Southeast Asia".

    right?

    Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 1:11pm

    I think we've stumbled onto something. Liver is Tom Clancy. Keep in mind Clancy wasn't actually in the military, but he sure as hell can spin a good yarn about the military.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/07/2009 @ 4:08pm

63. The UK is, has, and always will be, the most overrated "ally" the U.S. ever had.

    They have managed to get us sucked into their post-colonial "engagements" time and again. From their exploitation and drug-pushing in the China-Burma-India Theatre, to their being the original screw-ups of the Middle East...

    with friends like the British, who needs enemies?

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/07/2009 @ 4:42pm

64. And their cuisine sucks, too.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/07/2009 @ 4:46pm

65. Well comapred to Bush telling the Vietnamese when he visited Hanoi that we should have stayed. And compared to the lessons Bush and Cheney learned that lead us to Iraq. And compared to our country and Congress who let another President stampede us into war. compared to an utterly embarrassing presentation of minor irritations to the UN, And compared to accepting an unprovoked attack on an unarmed country to rid it of WMD's that we conveniently ignore were noit there even though we said we knew where they were but could tell th UN inspectors for fear of reveling our superior intelligence capabilities. And compared to a giant Embassy in Iraq as a holding tank for CIA operatives and agents. And compared to withdrawing by building more bases and declaring one humdred thousand or so soldiers as advisors, and compared to few reporters or newspapers or other media uttering a peep for fear of retaliation... it kind of sounds like McNamera learned more than rest of the country!!!

    Posted by wildthing at 07/07/2009 @ 5:37pm

66. The invasion of Iraq was pre-emptive war. The Nazis engaged in what they considered pre-emptive war.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 3:50pm

    Really? I am sure the Nazi's believed that the invasion of Poland WAS pre-emptive war. Just like you believe the invasion of Iraq was pre-emptive.

    I am sure you sleep better at night knowing with surety that all wars undertaken by the US are good. Because we can do no wrong...

    "It doesn't appear you can see a clear difference between communism and capitalism."

    Oh, I know the difference. But your insistance that followers of communism can not be inherantly trusted while those who are capitalist can be is insane. Your black/white, good v. evil comparision of communism and capitalism is naive.

    "The United States and United Kingdom conducted war in Iraq to stop opression and threat of future mass destruction."

    Typical neocon propaganda. Keep drinking the cool aid.

    Posted by Extraneous at 07/07/2009 @ 6:33pm

67. And their cuisine sucks, too.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/07/2009 @ 4:46pm |

    On that we agree

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 6:52pm

68. It is not true that we were in Vietnam to expand American influence and force the Vietnamese to be like us. We were there to stop the communism.

    .....The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and not a model democracy or any kind of democracy back then,....

    South Korea and Tiawan were not model democracies at their inception, either....there are much more so today.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/07/2009 @ 07:28am

    I am with you and anti.....the Vietnam War served a critical role in our winning the Cold War.

    No question that we should've fought differently.....far more `shock and awe' in blasting N. Vietnam for damn sure.

    That the US committed its forces in Vietnam, following the Korean War (yes, that was under the UN banner), told the Commies that they can't just march in everywhere......

    Bought time for many countries to develop the right way....including Thailand, S. Korea and Taiwan!

    Posted by Happy at 07/07/2009 @ 7:03pm

69. Absolutely ridiculous! There is no redemption for McNamara. He was one of history's biggest mass murderers and in a just world he would have been hung for his crimes.

    Posted by saroman at 07/07/2009 @ 7:08pm

70. sjchermak-It is not possible to lose an argument about Nam since all one can do is express an opinion and both sides can list facts to support their opinions.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2009 @ 2:15pm

    CHERMAK still labors under the assumption that he has command of a 'thought' process. He never addressed the Gulf of Tonkin issue at all, but then he accuses crab and I of 'boilerplate' leftist rhetoric. He is desperate to win something here, as he is always remarking about how someone has 'lost' an argument when an argument was never presented.

    Changing the topic, as mask suggests, is the only way that they can respond when the guru and point man for Viet Nam information refutes the wish list of conservative fantasies.

    If the Gulf of Tonkin 'incident' had never been invented we may never have gone to Viet Nam.

    Is that an untrue statement? Tell me about this one subject if you can, CHERMAK. Go to the letter limit!!

    Posted by ficheye at 07/07/2009 @ 7:18pm

71. Happy-The environment that is Viet Nam excludes shock and awe.The war prolonged the cold war and made it worse and not better.It was not until we left Nam that we opened trade with China and when the USSR fell and not during the war.Nor were there commies marching in anywhere in Nam.They were from there and lived there.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2009 @ 7:29pm

72. sjchermak-We were not in Nam to stop communism nor could we have stopped it by attacking a tiny and powerless country.We were there to turn the place into a huge military base in case we wanted to strike China or the USSR and our being that close just gave China and the USSR plenty of fear based propaganda that they used to scare there own people in the same way you were scared into supporting attacking Iraq..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2009 @ 7:34pm

73. If the Gulf of Tonkin 'incident' had never been invented we may never have gone to Viet Nam.

    Is that an untrue statement? Tell me about this one subject if you can, CHERMAK. Go to the letter limit!!

    Posted by ficheye at 07/07/2009 @ 7:18pm

    you could not be more wrong. By 1963 under Kennedy we already had 16,000 military personnel in Nam. We had hundreds more in CIA and military intel personnel in Nam and Laos. There is no question that the War was going to happen. Tonkin just made it more clear to any doubters. And Tonkin wasn't a lie. It was more the result of bad intel from NSA.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 7:40pm

74. The ultimate unprincipled behavior of McNamara was not only that he admitted he had been wrong about Vietnam, but that as soon as he realized it he could have not only redeemed himself but spared the horrors that ensued for many years. He was in a position to influence President Johnson who also knew the truth but lied to the American people.

    If you read the comments about Mcnamara's death in the N.Y.Times and Bob Herbert's column, your heart will turn over at the statements from former Vietnam vets, friends and family of fallen vets and permanently injured soldiers. They have nothing but contempt for McNamara for allowing the killing of friends and family which could have been avoided.

    Despite his painful answers to the questions put to him in "The fog of War" he never admitted that the basis of the war was unacceptable but still wondered if things could have come out differently. Would he have been a hero if they had??

    There were many questions about his book and whether or not he was honest about the reason for admitting his disgraceful role as Secretary of State. Many felt he wanted to remain in the public eye as a semi heroic figure as well as earn money from his book.

    I think you are too kind and semi-forgiving for a really despicable man who was a basic coward in contrast to the men who faced death on the bloody battlefields of Vietnam.

    Posted by pvolkov at 07/07/2009 @ 8:06pm

75. Posted by ficheye at 07/07/2009 @ 7:18pm

    It's actually worse than that. sjchermak believes every topic is simply a matter of opinion.

    You are essentially engaged in teaching a pig to sing.

    Posted by srjenkins at 07/07/2009 @ 8:14pm

76. No question that we should've fought differently.....far more `shock and awe' in blasting N. Vietnam for damn sure.

    Posted by Happy at 07/07/2009 @ 7:03pm

    OK, but in doing that, since it is known we dropped more tonnage there than in ALL OF WORLD WAR TWO, how would you have "ramped things up", conventionally, that is?

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/07/2009 @ 8:43pm

77. You know what LVL that makes SO much sense. It's all clear now. McNamara said you know what, I'm going to start a war but I don't want to actually win it. I just want to start it so I can get people killed and waste a bunch of money. It's all clear now. Thanks for that insight into the human condition.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2009 @ 9:47pm

78. I bet he sat at his desk in an all black robber baron outfit with a handlebar mustache and tapped his fingers malevolently when he thought of the plan. MwahaMwahaMwahahahahahahahaha.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2009 @ 9:54pm

79. A report on the Tonkin Bay Incident was released from the Top Secret status in 2005. It was written by Robert Hanyok, a historian for the National Security Agency (NSA). "Skunks, Boogies,Silent Hounds, and the Flying Fish". It is an excellent accounting of the CIA's attacks against N. Vietnam before the Tonkin Bay Incident. He carefully details how the N Viet attack against a US destroyer in daylight hours led to three heavily damaged N Viet boats and a number of dead n Viet Sailors. A couple nights later two of our destroyers received an erroneous message that they were about to be attacked by the N. Viets. They panicked and one fired over 300 five inch shells at ghost images caused by high wave action. There were no N Viet boats anywhere near the destroyers. The historian does a tedious and methodical of showing how that supposed attack was hyped into the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to escalate the war. The historian does point out the similarity in how bad information was hyped in both Vietnam and Iraq to justify more war. Google the title to read the full article.

    Posted by Aarky at 07/07/2009 @ 9:55pm

80. we dropped more tonnage there than in ALL OF WORLD WAR TWO, how would you have "ramped things up", conventionally, that is?

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/07/2009 @ 8:43pm

    Even as a teen, watching news reels of B-52s endlessly bombing the Ho Chi Ming Trail seemed.......uninspiring! We should have blasted all of N. Vietnams' capability to receive the `goods'...that means harbors and warehousing and Hanoi itself....instead, we danced around them....I know, some American POWs were purposely placed in `sensitive' Hiltons around/near just such places. Same with the border areas w/China!

    Posted by Happy at 07/07/2009 @ 10:08pm

81. Happy-Most everything was bombed,but the landscape made much of that meaningless.It was a guerrilla war and conventional tactics do not work very well and the Vietnamese do not surrender as their history clearly shows.They had been digging tunnels,etc for decades and much of that was there before we got there.It was a no win situation and continuing to bomb them and getting people killed just to keep you guys happy would have been pointless and insane.If we were still there we would still be fighting and the cold war still raging.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2009 @ 11:08pm

82. Happy-I would,however,love for you or LRJones to educate me when it comes to the subject of Viet Nam.That should be amusing.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2009 @ 11:12pm

83. It's actually worse than that. sjchermak believes every topic is simply a matter of opinion.

    You are essentially engaged in teaching a pig to sing.

    Posted by srjenkins at 07/07/2009 @ 8:14pm

    don't insult pigs.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcGo9O-kQbo

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2009 @ 11:38pm

84. SJ, your response to the question of your service in Vietnam is typical of a lot of chicken hawks who grew up during that time. You say you would have served if your number was called but a lot of people volunteered, why didn't you? If you believe service to this great country is such an honor then why didn't you volunteer and why do you now call people cowards who didn't or don't volunteer?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2009 @ 07:06am

85. Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 3:48pm

    ROFL.....Larry brings up the "Navy intell briefings" he got as part of his "credibility" on Vietnam...

    then when the issue of HIS briefings versus McNamara's briefings is raised, he yells "irrelevant!".

    Seriously, he should become a speechwriter for Palin.

    Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 07:45am

86. The neo-con position here seems to be:

    We did not kill enough natives, the indigenousness population.

    So, they wanted to kill as many natives as they could to SAVE them from communism.

    Now they want to kill as many Iraqis as they can, to save them from Al Qaida, which the neo-cons brought into Iraq INTENTIONALLY!

    pretty sick. Pretty arrogant.

    Daddy knows best.

    But don't be like us arrogant "typical" lefties!

    How nice (but strange) it must be to be always correct, never wrong, and to know what is best for people that have lived in a region for thousands of years. Like the communist Chinese in Uighur and Tibet territory .

    I did notice that neither Larry nor SJ had a single comment on the Harris Poll that yanked their argument from under their feet.

    Yep, who ever wrote it above is correct, clearly the neo-cons have more knowledge of Vietnam than the architect of the war!!

    Too rich.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/08/2009 @ 09:14am

87. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2009 @ 07:06am |

    Because they are hypocrites.

    It has been well established that their "core beliefs" include "do as I say, not as I do"

    and

    grr, kill.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/08/2009 @ 09:37am

88. Cccomfo1,

    Excellent points. Well done.

    Except, you can not find a single place anywhere on these threads where I called someone a coward, regarding military service.

    I have put forth the argument over and over again about the liberal mindset regarding fighting someone who is trying to kill you, where liberals believe it is America's fault to begin with and our enemies are angry at us only because of that and we must have dialog, peace and discussion.

    Kind of like what Neville Chamberlain achieved prior to World War II.

    These questions are a matter of national policy, and any citizen has a right to comment on them, and it is out of order for the political left, which includes you, to lay "restrictors" down on who can and can not comment on the issues of the day.

    You have played fast and loose with the facts by implying I used the term "coward".

    The reason this issue is pertinent to you is because you offer up critque from time to time about the quailty (or your perceived lack thereof) of people's discourse.....specifically mine and I have also seen you lecture antisocialist from time to time.

    But you of course engage in the same type of behavior yourself when you see fit. Thus you display yourself to just be a partisan hypocrite.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2009 @ 09:41am

89. The left has held McNamara up as this grand expert on Vietnam whose later year wisdom is not to be questioned.

    We are told about his depth of experience and involvement with this and related issues in government.

    We (conservatives) are lectured and questioned that "Do we claim to know as much or more than McNamara?" (paraphrasing in my own words)

    Why is this?

    Because McNamara's statements in later years and opinions in later years fit with what much of the left believes.

    There are a lot of people with expertise, and experience in government, etc.

    Yet the left does not automatically accept their opinons as valid, just because of the jobs they held.

    Consider someone else who worked in Congress, the Excecutive Branch including the White House and the Department of Defense, and in business.

    Certainly this person has a lot of experience and you would think if experience and jobs held are the barometers of whether the person's opinions are valid, then this person's opinions about the world we live in and what to do about it would be accepted by The Nation leftist bloggers with flying colors.

    You would think so, but that is not the case because the person I am thinking of is Dick Cheney.

    So knock off the BS libs, about McNamara's experience....the only reason you cite it is because it fits with what you already believe.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2009 @ 09:47am

90. <ROFL.....Larry brings up the "Navy intell briefings" he got as part of his "credibility" on Vietnam...

    then when the issue of HIS briefings versus McNamara's briefings is raised, he yells "irrelevant!".

    Seriously, he should become a speechwriter for Palin.

    Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 07:45am>

    you really love to spin things by placing things out of context.

    What you left out was central to my point.

    <Irrelevant. It's what you do with the information.

    McNamara never fought to win the war. He betrayed the troops as did Nixon and Kissinger.

    McNamara's post war mea culpa merely means the man had no core beliefs.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 3:48pm>

    I can have all of the information there is, but if I don't make good decisions using that information, it is worthless.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 11:12am

91. SJ, your response to the question of your service in Vietnam is typical of a lot of chicken hawks who grew up during that time. You say you would have served if your number was called but a lot of people volunteered, why didn't you? If you believe service to this great country is such an honor then why didn't you volunteer and why do you now call people cowards who didn't or don't volunteer?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2009 @ 07:06am

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2009 @ 07:06am |

    Because they are hypocrites.

    It has been well established that their "core beliefs" include "do as I say, not as I do"

    and

    grr, kill.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/08/2009 @ 09:37am

    In my case, you are wrong. I ENLISTED at age 17, under a Democratic president.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 11:17am

92. Tonkin just made it more clear to any doubters. And Tonkin wasn't a lie. It was more the result of bad intel from NSA. Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 7:40pm

    I tried not to state an obvious fact about the existing troops to save space... yes, there were many troops there, but we were wavering on the edge of official commitment, not yet drafting people. And the above statement is strange, pastor.

    If Tonkin was the result of bad intel, how would it have convinced any doubters if it didn't happen? It doesn't mean anything... it's nonsensical.

    There are facts being handed down by people who knew even more than you, yet the justifications remain and even change. I'd like to see the documentary, but I bet there will be a lot of conservative hawks casting doubt on the once respectable McNamara just to save their ideological butts. An ever morphing story, a moving target.

    Posted by ficheye at 07/08/2009 @ 11:38am

93. When new facts about Viet Nam are presented, the faithful seem to hide in philosophical meandering. To them the war was a great thing, even though many, many, many pieces of information cast doubt on that dubious declaration.

    I'll bet there are 'experts' here who can update us on the current historical thoughts on Trafalgar, Thermopylae, The War of the Roses, The Battle of Hastings... was William the Conquerors wife NOT four feet high? Battle of the Bulge, different than current data states? Whatever you think is true can change in an instant.

    The 'Fog of War' is just that.

    And hindsight is not 20-20 in this case.

    There is no argument. One just has to accept the delusional outlook of those who seem to enjoy destruction. Chermak's convoluted statement above about how only 'those on the left' doubt Cheneys credibility is pretty amusing, and a case in point. SJ, the world community, not just 'leftists', hold Cheney in low regard. Suffice it to say that Viet Nam sucked.

    Posted by ficheye at 07/08/2009 @ 12:21pm

94. Suffice it to say that Viet Nam sucked.

    Posted by ficheye at 07/08/2009 @ 12:21pm

    Can I ask how old you are? Were you an adult during the time of the Vietnam war?

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 12:42pm

95. I was old enough to be drafted. And that sucked as well.

    It was clear to all the grunts that the people who had sufficient distance from the jungle not to be an accessible target had a markedly different perspective than those who slogged through the mud.

    Posted by ficheye at 07/08/2009 @ 2:02pm

96. But you of course engage in the same type of behavior yourself when you see fit. Thus you display yourself to just be a partisan hypocrite.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2009 @ 09:41am

    You've called ME a coward for not serving. Unless I'm mistaking you for someone else. Maybe it was Frankgrits.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2009 @ 4:42pm

97. In my case, you are wrong. I ENLISTED at age 17, under a Democratic president.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 11:17am

    Um, I never mentioned you so how can be wrong? I KNOW you enlisted which is why I didn't mention you.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2009 @ 4:44pm

98. Even as a teen, watching news reels of B-52s endlessly bombing the Ho Chi Ming Trail seemed.......uninspiring!

    Posted by Happy at 07/07/2009 @ 10:08pm

    That's good to hear, Hap, that is, as a teen, you didn't get too broken up about it, I mean, all those dead civilians an' stuff.

    Merely "uninspired" (sic).

    Newsreels?

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/08/2009 @ 4:56pm

99. Um, I never mentioned you so how can be wrong? I KNOW you enlisted which is why I didn't mention you.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2009 @ 4:44pm

    I was responding to Crabwalk, not you.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 5:00pm

100. Seriously, he should become a speechwriter for Palin.

     Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 07:45am | ignore this person | warn this person

     She's got enough troubles.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/08/2009 @ 5:00pm

101. Newsreels?

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/08/2009 @ 4:56pm

     Isn't all news in black & white?...Geeze!

     Posted by Happy at 07/08/2009 @ 5:17pm

102. I was responding to Crabwalk, not you.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 5:00pm

     Oh ok, saw my name. Thought I was included.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2009 @ 6:38pm

103. Can I ask how old you are? Were you an adult during the time of the Vietnam war?

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 12:42pm

     Can I ask you why that is relevant?

     The Vietnam war led not only to our defeat and social disintegration, but gave us Orwellian concepts like destroying villages in order to save them.

     Posted by Shingo at 07/08/2009 @ 8:28pm

104. Cccomfo1,

     You say ".......You've called ME a coward for not serving. Unless I'm mistaking you for someone else. Maybe it was Frankgrits......"

     I guess so. I guess it was Frankgrits.

     I can tell you now, Cccomfo1, I can tell you with absolute certainty I could not have possibly called you a coward for not serving because I never once concerned myself with your military service.

     I am pretty certain I have not concerned myself with anybody's military service, let alone yours, with two exceptions, and as far as I know they are not bloggers here. They would be:

     1. John F. Kerry..... I have commented before about him......thus committing swiftboating whenever I did so, of course.

     2. Slick Willie...... I have perhaps asked in the past why Conservative politicians who may not have served in the military are called "Chicken hawks" but this term was never applied to Slick Willie that I have ever seen, even though he did send troops into harms way during their presidency (they being he and Hillary's presidency)

     Also, I perhaps may have commented on how as a young person Slick Willie commented that he loathed the military.

     So, Ccomfo1, Frank Grits is your culprit here.

     I, of course, can not possibly remember each and every comment I have ever made here, but I can remember some general concepts about the things I have posted, and one of those concepts is that I have not questioned whether people did or did not serve in the military.

     In fact, the opposite.... I HAVE questioned why the left places restrictors on who can comment on matters of public policy, such as the restriction some on the left seem to place that if you haven't been in the military or in Iraq you can't advocate that going to war there was the right thing to do.

     Whatever happened to Frankgrits, anyway?

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2009 @ 10:15pm

105. In fact, the opposite.... I HAVE questioned why the left places restrictors on who can comment on matters of public policy, such as the restriction some on the left seem to place that if you haven't been in the military or in Iraq you can't advocate that going to war there was the right thing to do.

     Whatever happened to Frankgrits, anyway?

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/08/2009 @ 10:15pm

     I think he got fed up with being wrong.

     "I HAVE questioned why the left places restrictors on who can comment on matters of public policy, such as the restriction some on the left seem to place that if you haven't been in the military or in Iraq you can't advocate that going to war there was the right thing to do."

     This one is funny though. I constantly get berated by conservatives because I didn't serve in the military therefore I can't know what I'm talking about. It's just like the restriction some people on the right say that if you disagree with the Iraq war then you are a traitor. Not you, I don't know if that's how you feel but that's certainly how plenty of people on this site comment. If you disagree with a war that means you must want to see America fall or it means you are an Anti-Semite in the case of Israel.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/09/2009 @ 05:37am

106. Cccomfo1,

     But it is not funny, though, because you say you get berated by conservatives because you didn't serve in the military....and maybe you do....because it is not possible for me to read each single post on each single thread all of the time.......so I am not 100% up to speed on everything you say...

     SUCH AS

     When you are going back and forth with antisocialist and I see you are lecturing him about this and about that and since you and I aren't conversing back and forth at those moments somtimes I scroll past those especially as I notice you are lecturing him as you seem to like to do a lot

     BUT

     You said I did that to you....

     AND

     I did not......

     AND

     I have never concerned myself with whether you were in the military or not....

     let alone berate you for it......

     AND

     How could I do that?

     GIVEN THAT

     Somewhere here I had mentioned I did not serve in the military.....

     WHICH of COURSE

     got me labeled as a chickenhawk

     WHICH IS CONFUSING BECAUSE

     how come Bill Clinton never was called a chickenhawk even though he never served in the military yet send troops into harms way?

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/09/2009 @ 08:18am

107. how come Bill Clinton never was called a chickenhawk even though he never served in the military yet send troops into harms way? Posted by sjchermak at 07/09/2009 @ 08:18am |

     Because "Draft Dodger" has a much nicer ring to it?

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/09/2009 @ 10:04am

108. snowball777,

     By the left? When did the left call him a draft dodger?

     The left is the entity that determines, apparently, what one can and can't do on the basis of whether you have been in the military or not.

     It is the left that seems to imply that if you have not been in the military you can not weigh in on matters of public policy if your opinion is, as a citizen, that it is necessary we go to war.

     (it of course is OK, whether you have been in the military or not, to oppose a possible military action).

     And it is the left that says if you are now in public office, and if you are Republican/Conservative, that you can not send troops in harms' way if you did not serve in the military, if you do you are a chickenhawk.

     So I was referring, as you already know, to these specifications the left puts down about what one can say or do based on their military service and the compatibility of their opinions with that of the political left.

     I was not referring to general commentary about people, but these "rules" the left seems to put in place.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/09/2009 @ 10:43am

109. ...how come Bill Clinton never was called a chickenhawk even though he never served in the military yet send troops into harms way?

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/09/2009 @ 08:18am

     We've been down this road before, SJ.

     Clinton sent us on peacekeeping missions, (believe me, I was there) by and large, not invasions of other countries which DID NOT attack us.

     As I have indicated before, apples and oranges as to risk levels.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/09/2009 @ 4:37pm

110. And, furthermore, Clinton did so without any attending swagger or bullshit machismo, a la "mission accompished", or "bring it on", etc.

     That kinda crap draws flies, too.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/09/2009 @ 4:42pm

111. Posted by sjchermak at 07/09/2009 @ 10:43am |

     "By the left? When did the left call him a draft dodger?"

     The primaries.

     "The left is the entity that determines, apparently, what one can and can't do on the basis of whether you have been in the military or not."

     There you go again...'apparently'...but you 'apparently' have forgotten about:

     - Swiftboating

     - Dukakis in a tank

     - McCain on Obama's non-service

     "It is the left that seems to imply that if you have not been in the military you can not weigh in on matters of public policy if your opinion is, as a citizen, that it is necessary we go to war."

     You 'seem' to have your head where the sun shines not.

     "(it of course is OK, whether you have been in the military or not, to oppose a possible military action)."

     Why would Cheney ever oppose some good ole profiteering?

     "And it is the left that says if you are now in public office, and if you are Republican/Conservative, that you can not send troops in harms' way if you did not serve in the military, if you do you are a chickenhawk."

     Sorry, still cuts both ways, not that you can find many cons who would ever say no to some American bloodshed, especially if they can bank on it.

     "So I was referring, as you already know, to these specifications the left puts down about what one can say or do based on their military service and the compatibility of their opinions with that of the political left."

     And you're still only half right, since Republicans do this almost every election for Congress or President.

     "I was not referring to general commentary about people, but these "rules" the left seems to put in place."

     Uh huh...'seems'...to anyone who has only one eye.

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/09/2009 @ 7:00pm

112. From the all-powerful Wiki:

     "In the 1992 presidential campaign, conservative critics of Democratic candidate Bill Clinton questioned the way in which he had avoided service in the Vietnam War. They charged that while Quayle had at least served honorably in uniform, they argued that Clinton had been a "draft dodger" and was thus not suitable to become commander-in-chief. This criticism continued throughout Clinton's presidency, particularly on RIGHT-WING talk radio."

     http://www.wordspy.com/words/chickenhawk.asp

     "In England during World War I, as thousands were dying pointlessly in the trenches, pretty girls went around handing white feathers -- a symbol of cowardice -- to men who weren't in uniform. The one group currently being handed white feathers who may deserve them are the so-called "war wimps" or "chicken hawks" -- prominent Americans helping to spread war fever today who avoided service during Vietnam. --"No white feather, please," The NEW REPUBLIC, June 16, 1986"

     What the matter, Chickenhawk Commander?

     Good for the goose, but not for the gander?

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/09/2009 @ 7:41pm

113. snowball777,

     You pasted a lot of stuff that in no way addressed or refuted my comments.

     I have seen over and over again on blogs where a leftist will tell a conservative they should not be advocating Iraq was the right thing to do or that we should go to war unless they have served before or are willing to go fight themselves.

     So, even though we live in a free country where you would think all citizens have a right to weigh in on public policy, apparently the left does not think so because they left tells conservatives they can't comment on war policy (if the comment is that we should be going to war) unless their personal life meets criteria established by the left.

     And the same goes for a Conservative politician. If one is in office as President, that person has to make decisions based on what is happening in the world at that time and the impact of that on the United States, now and in the future. They should not be making the decision based on their personal background.

     If there was a necessity (which there was) to stop Saddam to prevent horrific terror down the road, than the decison to go to war is based on that circumstance and NOT whether the person making the decision served IN Vietnam.

     The President has the right to have the entire amount of presidential power available to him or her, that power should not be modified on the fly by leftists or restricted by leftists just because the leftists do not like who is in the office.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/10/2009 @ 06:30am

114. Posted by sjchermak at 07/10/2009 @ 06:30am |

     "You pasted a lot of stuff that in no way addressed or refuted my comments."

     Merely pointing out that the use of the term in US politics was begun by the right, not the left.

     "I have seen over and over again on blogs...unless they have served before or are willing to go fight themselves."

     And they'd be wrong to do so...Iraq was the wrong thing to do regardless of whether or not someone has served.

     "..you would think all citizens have a right to weigh in on public policy..."

     So "the left" is entirely represented by a few individuals you've seen posting on blogs and you accept their authority? Sad.

     And when the right says that anyone weighing in on Iraq who thinks we shouldn't have engaged in pre-emptive war on specious grounds is "against the troops" (as opposed to merely against the failed leadership of the aforementioned chickenhawks)?

     Your moral high-ground 'appears' to be crumbling beneath your hypocritical feet.

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/10/2009 @ 08:22am

115. snowball777,

     My argument is not crumbling.

     I have come across this mindset many times, in different blogs or in the newspaper or in direct conversation with someone......the "restrictors" put in place by leftists on what someone can say based on whether they served in the military or not.........

     and the "restrictors" on what national leaders (if they are Republican) can do based on whether they served or not.

     You and I both know when I use the word "restrictors" I am not referring to actual restrictions (at least actual restrictions have not happened yet)...but the opinion of leftists on who can and can't speak out on issues of the day or take actions regarding military policy........

     Your postings have not addressed that or have not refuted that it happens....you minimize things and say what I claim is represented by a few individuals.

     If it were just a few leftists on The Nation I would not be commenting on it in the manner I am......

     What was the point of mentioning the Dukakis tank thing? Dukakis was trying to show that a Democrat was pro-military and national defense, etc.....and he looked like Snoopy in the tank and made an idiot out of himself by doing so.....How does what Dukakis did with regard to the tank have anything to do with what I was discussing?

     What I am commenting on is not limited by the left to military matters either, by the way.

     Bring up the subject of murdering Babies (you on the left call it abortion or a woman's right to choose) and then the fur really flies.

     Any number of pro life males, myself included, have encoutered pro Baby nuking women who will literally foam at the mouth in anger and rage saying if one is not a woman one can not comment on the subject.

     The left does like to restrict people's speech.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/10/2009 @ 10:33am

116. Posted by sjchermak at 07/10/2009 @ 10:33am |

     I don't deny that SOME on the left feel the way you claim they do, but I do deny that it has ANY relevance whatsoever or that it is exclusive to the left.

     You are entitled to your opinion, wrong though it may be in lefty eyes, whether they agree with you or not; the 'free' in 'free country' (ignoring the last eight years, anyway). The 'restrictors' are all in your head.

     The point about Dukakis is that ALL Pres candidates are evaluated on their merits as Cmdr in Chief; hence Dukie's lame attempt to appear capable in this regard.

     You claim "the left" (can you make ANY claims without engaging in broad generalization?) like to restrict speech, but the ACLU, stalwart defenders of the 1st amendment, are a LEFTIST organization.

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/10/2009 @ 11:12am

117. snowball777,

     Relevance with regard to what?

     I brought up this particular sub topic. It is relevant because I am tired of lefties declaring that filters belong on speech in this country or filters should exist on what a President can do, based on their past background.

     Beyond that, I have seen liberals send letters to the editor of our local newspaper asking that conservative columninsts be eliminated from the paper because they are "not helpful" or they engage in "hate speech".

     And I have seen plenty of stories of how on college campuses if a conservative comes to speak their speech is shut down sometimes by leftist protestors.

     When people get into debates with you lefties you use all kinds of verbal gymnastics, such as you can't "label" people or make "broad generalizations", etc.

     It seems you on the left more than people on the right try to restrict or filter the debate, rather than engage in the debate. This happens a lot, which is why I brought the topic up...it is relevant.

     Conservatives should start demanding that pacifist anti-war libs have no business advocating we should capitulate to our enemies or "engage in dialogue" (same thing) or "give peace a chance" (same thing) UNLESS the pacifist lib has personally experienced the death, misery and human suffering that results from going the pacifist route, or has had close relatives who suffered and died needless because peace was given a chance.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/10/2009 @ 12:54pm

118. Posted by sjchermak at 07/10/2009 @ 12:54pm |

     "Relevance with regard to what?"

     Their opinions with respect to your ability to say what you feel, however stupid.

     "I brought up this particular sub topic. It is relevant because I am tired of lefties declaring that filters belong on speech in this country or filters should exist on what a President can do, based on their past background."

     Still not exclusive to the left. Are we in trouble with you for demanding that our leaders think before acting or practice what they preach too?

     "Beyond that, I have seen liberals send letters to the editor of our local newspaper asking that conservative columninsts be eliminated from the paper because they are "not helpful" or they engage in "hate speech"."

     Again, not exclusive to the left. So what?

     "And I have seen plenty of stories of how on college campuses if a conservative comes to speak their speech is shut down sometimes by leftist protestors."

     Obama's speech at Notre Dame? Same thing.

     "When people get into debates with you lefties you use all kinds of verbal gymnastics, such as you can't "label" people or make "broad generalizations", etc."

     Just trying to get you to engage in debate rather than rhetoric, though I'm tiring quickly; you're pretty dense.

     "Conservatives should start demanding that pacifist anti-war libs have no business advocating we should capitulate to our enemies"

     Done, you don't even put conditions on it. Disagreement means, "you're against us", ipso facto.

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/10/2009 @ 2:04pm

119. Here Nichols has an easy subject, and still he gets it wrong.

     It is ridiculous for McNamara to contend VN was wrong because we did not have allies to stand with us. Countries have different interests. They act on that basis. When the interests of other countries don't coincide with your own, to conclude that you therefore can't defend your interests is absurd.

     VN wasn't wrong because others did not support us. It was wrong because that war did not serve our interests. The ICBMs targeting our cities were Soviet, not Vietnamese. Russia and China were our dangerous opponents, not Hanoi and the Vietcong. They fought with sharp bamboo traps and rifles. It took a man in sandles three weeks to carry rounds for their RPGs and light mortars from the North to the South. McNamera, the number cruncher, decided to stick a half a million grunts into Asia to defeat them.

     NOt only didn't that war advance our vital national intersts, it hurt them. Starting in the late 1950s the Chinese and Russians began to get on each other's nerves. Their border disputes were crackling into outright firefights. By 1969 those involved tanks.

     By involving us in Southeast Asia JFK, LBJ and Mc contained the Sino Soviet split. Those geniuses did the one thing that could postpone the Red Giant's rupture. We united them against us. It took Nixon and Kissisnger to understand that, and align the US with China against the USSR.

     Now Nichols uses that befuddled old man, to confuse the issue of Iraq.

     True, there too, as in VN, hardly anyone stood with us. But the important difference was that while VN did not serve but undermined US national interest, prevailing in Iraq was vital to our national interests. No other region is as indispensable to our well being.

     Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/10/2009 @ 3:35pm