Trump is "a clear and present danger"

That struck a chord with me... Unless someone tasked me with listing all the presidents going back 50 years or something I would have probably never even thought of the name - shame. Placeholder indeed. What can one expect from Nixon's sidekick though, really. Nixon's resignation kind of overshadowed those three years - but hey, he did pardon Nixon. There's an accomplishment to put on your resume...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All I did was assign to Nixon the Southern Strategy for getting elected, which he developed and proved in action, and which has since become the central campaign and governance mode of the Republican Party. You, not me, labeled that "vilification". Not that I disagree.

Nice of the hippies and liberals and Democrats to get rid of Johnson for you, don't you think? Too bad the country went with Nixon, though.

Nixon expanded the bombing of innocents, and delayed the American withdrawal for years in hopes of forcing Hanoi to compromise by horrific bombing of non-military targets, thereby avoiding the appearance of defeat.

Or as you noticed, Nixon's plan was to replace American soldiers fighting North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers with American bombers laying waste to entire villages and landscapes, and expand their scope farther and more intensively into Laos and Cambodia, bombing the farms and villages and dikes and irrigation systems in the countryside there as well as in Vietnam. He also began the policy of outsourcing some of the bombing of Vietnamese civilians, to the air force of the client State he still, in early 1972, hoped to put into power in South Vietnam.

The napalm bombing you posted a photo from, to illustrate the depravity of war, was Nixon's doing. 1972, Nixon's fourth year in office. He spent about as much time running the Vietnam War as Johnson did.

Nixon's "Vietnamization" approach also involved increased emphasis on the earlier programs of training and supervising South Vietnamese military officers, who became famous for their ineptitude in battle and brutality in handling prisoners and civilians (including the many turncoats, who when fighting for Hanoi were brave in battle and more honorable in their treatment of civilians - even prisoners, at times). That was the first public presentation of that phenomenon that has since become so common as to be taken for granted: the poor fighting abilities and thuggish nature of America's local allies in these dozens of military ventures, compared with their enemies and even with themselves when on the other side.

And thereby helped create Pol Pot, partly with American backing for a while (confused about his opposition to Sihuanouk, maybe), partly as a consequence of the massive bombing of Cambodia, partly via Chinese support with money and supplies.

It's sometimes thought to be a wonder Nixon still had his wallet and credit cards, after his various negotiations with China. But maybe it isn't so strange that China let him keep the credit cards - the country he represented ended up maxing them on Chinese stuff.

Rolling Thunder was Johnson. 1965 - 1968. It didn't work.

Nixon couldn't get Hanoi to give up either, and agree to his installation of a client State in half their country just as they could see they were about to win it all,

so he also commenced, as Johnson had, terrorizing the population via massive aerial bombardment in an effort to force acceptance - through mass murder of their families, depopulation of the supporting countryside, and destruction of the forests and farms and homes - of what they had fought against for twenty five years (since December of 1946) at almost unimaginable cost.

You are on record as not approving of that kind of behavior - far worse than anything Clinton has done. Change your mind?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Before Kennedy, it was under department of state and involved no combat troops(mostly spooks) (The first 2 killed, a colonel and sergeant, were assigned to the cia).
and then
In 1961, South Vietnam signed a military and economic aid treaty with the United States leading to the arrival (1961) of U.S. support troops and the formation (1962) of the U.S. Military Assistance Command. Mounting dissatisfaction with the ineffectiveness and corruption of Diem's government culminated (Nov., 1963) in a military coup engineered by Duong Van Minh; Diem was executed. No one was able to establish control in South Vietnam until June, 1965, when Nguyen Cao Ky became premier, but U.S. military aid to South Vietnam increased, especially after the U.S. Senate passed the Tonkin Gulf resolution (Aug. 7, 1964) at the request of President Lyndon B. Johnson.

in October 1961 Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara recommends sending six divisions (200,000 men) to Vietnam.
(we called it McNamara's war
In August 1962 — Kennedy signed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1962, which provides "... military assistance to countries which are on the rim of the Communist world and under direct attack".

And, voila
We had the democrat's war.

Thanx Tiassa
Nice to know that at least one of us has something resembling a working memory.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

billvon
Seriously, look at the strategy that Nixon was trying to implement.
The fact that we got involved in the first place was a really stupid mistake----------then how to get out without leaving chaos in our wake.

Did Nixon get us involved in any other wars?

As/re Ford getting us out;
Remember "the boat people"?

...........................
Could it have been that Nixon tried to stand up against the mic, and the mic burned him for it?

 

I was suitably impressed when VietNam put an end to Pol Pot. Which pissed off the Chinese who then attacked Vietnam.
Big mistake? The Vietnamese fought China's pla to a standstill, perhaps(information seems sketchy) generating more casualties in a month than we had in 5 years.
Damned impressive.
(Something about respecting your enemies?)

Who currently owns/controls the Spratly islands?

 

Yeah. Do that. Ugly, no? At least it took a lot of American soldiers out of combat -he cut the US casualty rate in half and more. But if your problem is with the depravity of such wars, Nixon's strategy as revealed by his tactics is an introduction to the modern US war era - you can get away with anything if you don't get too many American soldiers killed in the process. It was the most dishonorable "peace" America has made outside of the Red wars - and we weren't quite a country yet, then.

Leaving chaos in our wake was half the plan. Destruction, chaos, as punishment for opposition and a lesson to anyone watching, was a significant part of Kissinger&Co's policy, Nixon fully on board.

Uh, no. If you recall, he left office before he had the opportunity, a few months after his handpicked VP likewise left office in a non-prosecution agreement with the Justice Department (Agnew had been taking cash bribes across the desk in his official office).

No. As in you've got to be kidding - right up to his last weeks in office he was trying to hook up the mic with the US client government in South Vietnam, with close to a billion dollars worth of US taxpayer supplied military stuff on the line - including more napalm. The Dems in Congress cut him off.

Meanwhile, much as one appreciates the digression, the original point was that the current ugly at the core of the Republican Party dates directly to Nixon's 1968 campaign. Whatever else Nixon did or didn't do, he changed the voting base of the Republican Party into what we see today. He did it by courting and welcoming the racial bigots and fundies of the Confederacy, whom Johnson had alienated, into the Republican Party. And there they have remained - the Republican voting base, that 27% plus the remaining fraction of a majority of white men 35 - 60.

btw:

I remind you of Hillary Clinton's political record and consistent nature, including the contrasts between it and that of some other Democratic politicians, and you call it "demonizing Democratic politicians and voters". Are the implications clear?

 

Even setting aside the uselessness of that response owing to its complete disregard for the actual content of months worth of discourse, it seems useful to note that should we bother to pretend there was ever a time when that line would have worked, it's long past.

Your inability to write a proper leftist critique pretty much reminds that "left libertarian" is something of a fraud.

Honestly, you have spent so many months diminishing yourself by behaving like a Republican, it seems best to just wait for you to return to sanity.

You know, it's kind of sad; in 2008 I asked one of my Republican neighbors why he was suddenly leaping into Potsherd Canyon, and he excused himself by pointing out that it was, after all, election season, so, you know, there. And then Barack Obama won, and my associate simply lost it. He stopped trying, instead just saying the first thing to mind because, hey, he said it, so we were expected to treat it "fairly", as if it was substantial. He tried weaving pop culture into his argument at one point, except he kept getting the jokes exactly wrong. You know, I mean one hundred-eighty degrees exactly wrong. In the end, though he still cannot explain what the hell Barack Obama actually did by that point in 2009 that all the good, decent, unracist people had no choice but to lob racist flaming kitchen sinks at the president―which, in turn, he describes as a policy argument―and all we can figure out about what he means is that it's all the president's fault for silencing good people who weren't actually silenced.

You've watched this go on for years, now. And, yes, it's extraordinary compared to what came before. You've watched people run around―with no policy argument, hoping to prey on people's fearful instincts, spitting petulant invective and conspiracism and demonization and bawling about corruption in everything they don't―like in this extraordinary context since, what, wasn't it like February, 2009, when the GOP kissed Limbaugh's ring? And all the freaking Aunt Jemima Obamanoia that came before he was even elected? And we've watched them carry on embarrassing themselves and the nation, and, you know, at this point what, really, can we say to them? I mean, nothing we've said at all this whole time has done anything other than convince them these manners of behavior are good ideas.

Is it because it occasionally bears success at the ballot box? Is that why? At what point, Iceaura, did you decide imitating those people was a good idea? And, you know, really: Why?

Look, I've made the point about your invective against the Democratic establishment denouncing millions of Democratic voters for quite a while, now.

And then you go and try to pull that shit?

You may not like the point, but you don't get to misrepresent it in order to dodge it.

Get your head out, dude, and grow up.

 

No; he was impeached and ended up resigning. He did not get the opportunity to start any other wars (fortunately.)

More likely his criminal acts finally caught up with him.

 

Still burns, apparently - that embarrassing overlook of the several examples I had posted in the very thread you first came up with that attempted personal attack.

I'm far more libertarian than lefty, admittedly - but even a slight left lean on the old Political Compass or whatever qualifies me as a lefty around here. And I can certainly provide a leftist critique, with or without personally subscribing to it, on demand - and have. Of Clinton, for example. As you very well know.

And it's still full of shit. Look, Mr Hillary Clinton is the most effective politician of the twentieth century: the backroom shorting, cheating, and outright betrayal of millions of Democratic voters (along with the rest of the US citizenry) by the Democratic Party's establishment is not exactly news, is it? In what way does recognizing that "denounce" Democratic voters?

At what point did describing Hillary Clinton's political record accurately become "imitating those people"? Was it about the time personal invective in lieu of argument from evidence became adult political behavior?

Hillary Clinton is not an effective promoter of a liberal agenda. As in: not particularly liberal; not particularly effective. Never has been, probably never will be. And you can't sell her as what she isn't - you just look dishonest or clueless, depending on the weather. Trump has the presence and tone of voice to pull off the big con, Clinton does not.

Clinton is probably better off running on her comparative sanity and familiarity, not her record or supposed policies. Evidence? look at the media campaign against her - the Reps always focus on denigrating their opponent's strength, right? Well the focus right now is on presenting Clinton as a heretofore clandestine maniac, some kind of psycho.

I'm sorry to have to insist on what should be a minor point, but if you and the rest of the koolaid crowd around that politician continue to overestimate her abilities and appeal, continue to believe you have a solid positive hold on the left and the liberal and the well-educated, Trump is the beneficiary. It is very promising that she more or less disappears for long stretches (and we can hope that it's on good advice, rather than an accident of illness), it's very promising that all her ads have been full of Trump rather than Clinton, she seems to have dodged the bullet of gun control so far, and maybe she can get Trump to avoid the debates and take her off the hook; but there's eight weeks to go on a four point lead.

 

Sorry, Ice. You had your chance to be honest for months, you still can't ask a question without substituting your personal feelgood fantasy for reality, and you still have no case to make except for how much you hate Hillary Clinton.

Like I said, grow up.

 

And Tiassa mines the wingnut rhetoric bag (it's not deep) and comes up with stuff off the bottom - hatred, dishonesty, the stuff I get from Joe when he's trying to deny the institutional racism in the police department of Ferguson or something like that.

So it's hatred I've been posting. But also feelgood fantasy. And that squares with the dishonesty how - I'm pretending to hate Clinton by posting rants when I really don't, or I secretly hate Clinton underneath the cover of my reasonable and accurate descriptions of her that don't fool you? Please.

Wipe the spittle off your chin and think a minute, go back to the beginning: when was it that you came to regard the invariably screwing up and consistently rightwing authoritarian Clinton as a masterful political champion of the liberal agenda? Can you pin it down to a month or so? Because there's no way that's what you were thinking when she defied her Party, her constituents, every well-reasoning lefty and consistently insightful political analyst available, ordinary common sense, and her life's experience with those guys if she learned anything at all from it, to vote War-launching powers to W&Cheney. And don't vaseline the lens: a mature and experienced politician, at the height of her powers, with months to think about it and more background information than almost anyone else on the planet, was presented with the defining political issue and cast the vote of her life.

And then spent years not regretting or apologizing or explaining but instead defending that vote, with a series of increasingly lame excuses.

Exactly when did that kind of Clinton decision, and there have been several, become "navigating the treacherous waters of the Beltway"?

 

Well here is the problem with that, Joe has never once denied institutional racism. My issue with you is and has been your consistent dishonesty as demonstrated your recent post. You have a penchant for just making stuff up as you just did. You have a persistent disregard for fact and reason.

 

You denied the visible institutional racism in the Ferguson police department, obvious in the wake of the shooting, and you called me a liar for listing the several obvious manifestations of it in the handling of the shooting, as well as the several obvious problems with the shooters version of events compared with the physical evidence. Why you decided to call me a "liar" for listing those things and referring to them in subsequent posts I do not know, but the term has become habitual with you - it's become routine for you to call people (me especially, but others as well) liars, in any argument or disagreement, even in situations (like this one, and Ferguson) where you are obviously in the wrong. You do it a lot. It makes no sense. By now, even if you did uncover dishonesty in someone's posting the accusation from you would have no force - it's just your standard response to something you don't like, equivalent to "bad" or "wrong" in your posts.

The resort to that particular term - liar - characterizes only a few posters here. It's not something everybody does. It's indicative.

And watching the Clinton crowd here

- not those who merely regard Clinton as the best potential President on the ballot, or those who would (or did) vote for her in preference to Sanders in the recent primary for whatever reason, but those who actually back her candidacy as the triumph of a superb politician and effective legislator and transformative advocate for liberal causes finally gaining her rightful role and well-deserved authority -

spiral into the rhetorical approach of the Limbaugh Legions, is eye-opening. Buying into bullshit does deeply personal and persistent harm, apparently, to anyone And it's a harm we can no longer completely avoid, as a country - Trump is a clear and present danger, a likely disaster looming, but even in deflecting him, if we do, it appears we will be avoiding the worst only.

 

Well then you should be able to prove it. But you can't, because it's not true. You have a well established and well known penchant for for being dishonest.

 

My favorite blogger (http://driftglass.blogspot.com) comes through for me again: http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/blame-elites-trump-phenomenon

That is a video (and transcript) of a live discussion of the Trump phenomenon, featuring various "respectable" Republican intellectuals. They are debating whom to blame, and their target field is limited - essentially, the Republican elite or the Republican core voter. And guess what: among them, overall, they know very well what these two entities are comprised of. That is, the ones who blame the elite have no problem describing them accurately, and the ones who blame the Trump voters find accurate description of them easy as well.

And not only do they have realistic views of current reality, they have a reasonable, if chronologically and causally vague (it's been fifty years, not sixteen, since the Vietnam War went sideways) grasp on the historical context,

although Domenech keeps saying the magic word "bipartisan" for some reason - probably a side effect of leaving out, as a possible blame target, the Republican media operations that sign his paychecks (notice that by the end of his careful spreading of stank on everybody within range, the "elite" has been narrowed to the "elected")

Let's assume this was a recent revelation, because the alternative - that they have been watching this scene develop for thirty years now same as the lefties and liberals, only cheering for it instead of desperately trying whatever they can think of to stop it - is too serious a slander to deliver casually. Besides, they seem genuinely surprised - the difference between "comprised" and "composed" being the lack of identified agency. That is: They spend little if any time considering how the Republican elites, or the Republican voters, came to be as they are and collected together in the Republican Party as they are.

But I don't mean to step on anyone's entertainment. Reading the transcript is faster, and it seems carefully done.

 

Here's some more crow for you to eat:

Trump: "We’re going to have to do something extremely tough over there. . . . Like, knock the hell out of them. And we have to get everybody together and we have to lead for a change because we’re not knocking them, we’re hitting them every once in a while, we’re hitting them in certain places, we’re being very gentle about it, we’re going to have to be very tough."

Now that he has openly called for war against Islam, will you admit your error?

 

Perspective matters.

 

It definitely does; glad you are coming to see that.

 

lol
psst:
I think I "came to see that" over 40-50 years ago.

 

Nope.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Susan Sarandon Verified account ‏@SusanSarandon
Susan Sarandon Retweeted Jamie Lee Curtis

Of course I would never support Trump for any reason. If you watch the interview you'll see that's not what I said.