Replies

So Kerry is now the first self-confessed war criminal in the history of the Republic to be nominated for president. Normally this would be considered an electoral plus only in the more cynical banana republics. But the Democrats seemed to think they could run an anti-war anti-hero as a war hero and nobody would mind.

Vietnam all started with liars and lies of the Democrats. Why should the Dems be any different now.

The Democrats ran an anti-war candidate in 1964, LBJ. All the time Johnson was telling voters on the stump the he "Won't send our boys to South East Asia", he was planning the escalation to begin just after his inauguration in '65.

Vietnam all started with liars and lies of the Democrats. Why should the Dems be any different now.

The part that amazes me, is that we allow the dems to continually lay the vietnam war at nixons feet.

Vietnam all started with liars and lies of the Democrats. Why should the Dems be any different now.

They are not. Notice that while the anti-war movement festered while Democrats were president, it exploded when Nixon won the presidency. It took on a whole new dimension and a quantum leap upward in terms of radicalism and vitriol. Even Kerry may not have been so against the war until an event that happened in November of 1968... Nixon (a Republican) was elected president and Kerry's whole attitude changed. Suddenly he's out in a matter of months and he protesting the war now and calling his comerades and his President monsters.

Fast-forward 30 years... Kerry practically begs Bill Clinton to go in and toss out Sadam Hussein, who was a real threat to the whole world because the whole world knew that he had WMD's, and had used them on his own people. For 5 or six years Kerry has been screaming that Hussein was a danger to America, and indeed the whole world. Then an event happened in November 2000... George W. Bush, a Republican, was elected president. And George W. Bush did exactly what Kerry has been begging some president to do for 5 or 6 years... Take out Sadam Hussein and disarm him. Suddenly it was 1969 all over again. A change of attitude conspicuously related to a change in presidency from Democrat to Republican. Notice how nobody in the present-day anti-war movement raised a single peep about Clinton's exploits in Yugoslavia, in a war that had absolutely zero national interest to the U.S., or posed any threat whatsoever to U.S. security. But let a Republican president do what many Democrats had been calling for for years (overthrow Hussein) and their tune changes from hawk to dove overnight. It's nothing but politics and its putrid.

Why not? The Democrats ran an anti-war candidate in 1964, LBJ. All the time Johnson was telling voters on the stump the he "Won't send our boys to South East Asia", he was planning the escalation to begin just after his inauguration in '65...yeah, they told me if I voted for Goldwater in '64 the war would escalate - I voted for Goldwater, and sure enough it did........

"Vietnam all started with liars and lies of the Democrats. Why should the Dems be any different now."

"My fellow Americans, I come to you tonight with a heavy heart to promise you that I will not send American boys to Asia to do what Asian boys should be doing for themselves." That is not exactly right but somewhere close.