Posted on 08/13/2007 5:02:09 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
The next American president can boldly lead our nation in exciting new directions. That at least is the theory. That's why we care so much about the process.
While this does happen, sometimes, the hard truth is that once elected, presidents all too often balk in the face of conflicting constituencies and the drag of bureaucracy. Remember Bill Clinton, a liberal, Democratic progressive who thought he'd permit gays in the military -- a small shift that cost nothing and benefitted the country, its only drawback being the new policy offended hidebound military officers and religious reactionaries.
Couldn't do it. Thwarted. And now the Democratic candidates pause from vying to outdo each other promising how quickly we'll exit Iraq, given the chance, to allow that, well yeah, it might take a long time to end the war.
No kidding. No president, left, right or center, is going to yank our troops out and face the disaster that ensues. And if the cost is continuing death for American soldiers, we've already shown ourselves more than willing to tolerate that.
Richard Nixon squeaked to election in 1968 promising "peace with honor" and vowing to end the war in Vietnam. But he didn't. He expanded it, and four years later he was re-elected by the greatest landslide in American history. Keep that in mind.
mailto:nsteinberg@suntimes.com
OOPS - “... the rats and commies just couldN’T have that.”
Little Marxist needs a history lesson....what is wrong with Chicago, how did this great city become so packed with Commie/Socialist?
Ummm... no, he did bring an end to the Vietnam war in regards to U.S. involvement. (peace with honor only comes to the victorious.)
You're right, Chi-town. This writer is a colossal idiot.
Nixon did get us out of Vietnam as he promised. The last US combat troops left in March 1973. The Paris Peace Accords were supposed to provide for "peace with honor," but the NVA violated the agreement and Congress stopped the US from responding. Nixon won in a landslide in 1972 because he did get us out of Vietnam.
Excuse me, but you accidentally omitted the adjective DEMOCRATIC from the noun 'Congress' - my proofreader's eye caught it immediately.
N.B. - When I first typed that, I misspelled 'proofreader.'
Absolutely - even in early ‘75, the commies advancing on “highway 1” could have been blasted to smithereens with air support as promised back in ‘72-’73.
"I think we obtained peace with honor - then we threw it away."
“The last US combat troops left in March 1973.” kabar
Saigon fell April 30th, 2005.
I think we won the war. The Democratic Congress abandoned South Vietnam. It took two years for the North Vietnamese, backed by the Soviet Union, to prepare, mobilize, and conquer.
In terms of US military involvement, Nixon did not expand the war in Vietnam. Instead, through the policy of “Vietnamization,” Nixon announced in June 1969 in a press conference on Midway Island following a meeting with President Thieu that the US would conduct a phased troop withdrawal that would occur in 14 stages from July 1969 through November 1972. The last US combat troops left Vietnam on March 29,1973 as President Nixon declares “the day we have all worked and prayed for has finally come.” The last American soldier to die in combat in Vietnam, Lt. Col. William B. Nolde, was killed on January 27, 1973.
On January 23, 1973 - President Nixon announced that an agreement has been reached which will “end the war and bring peace with honor.” On January 27, 1973 the Paris Peace Accords are signed by the U.S., North Vietnam, South Vietnam and the Viet Cong. Under the terms, the U.S. agrees to immediately halt all military activities and withdraw all remaining military personnel within 60 days. The North Vietnamese agree to an immediate cease-fire and the release of all American POWs within 60 days. An estimated 150,000 North Vietnamese soldiers presently in South Vietnam are allowed to remain. Vietnam is still divided. South Vietnam is considered to be one country with two governments, one led by President Thieu, the other led by Viet Cong, pending future reconciliation.
December 13, 1974 - North Vietnam violates the Paris peace treaty and tests President Ford’s resolve by attacking Phuoc Long Province in South Vietnam. President Ford responds with diplomatic protests but no military force in compliance with the Congressional ban on all U.S. military activity in Southeast Asia
On January 8, 1975 the - NVA general staff plan for the invasion of South Vietnam by 20 divisions is approved by North Vietnam’s Politburo. By now, the Soviet-supplied North Vietnamese Army is the fifth largest in the world. It anticipates a two year struggle for victory. But in reality, South Vietnam’s forces will collapse in only 55 days.
January 14, 1975 - Testifying before Congress, Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger states that the U.S. is not living up to its earlier promise to South Vietnam’s President Thieu of “severe retaliatory action” in the event North Vietnam violated the Paris peace treaty.
April 21, 1975 - A bitter, tearful President Thieu resigns during a 90 minute rambling TV speech to the people of South Vietnam. Thieu reads from the letter sent by Nixon in 1972 pledging “severe retaliatory action” if South Vietnam was threatened. Thieu condemns the Paris Peace Accords, Henry Kissinger and the U.S. “The United States has not respected its promises. It is inhumane. It is untrustworthy. It is irresponsible.” He is then ushered into exile in Taiwan, aided by the CIA.
April 30, 1975 - At 8:35 a.m., the last Americans, ten Marines from the embassy, depart Saigon, concluding the United States presence in Vietnam. North Vietnamese troops pour into Saigon and encounter little resistance. By 11 a.m., the red and blue Viet Cong flag flies from the presidential palace. President Minh broadcasts a message of unconditional surrender. The war is over.
The South Vietnamese had fought on for almost two years after the US ceased military involvement in Vietnam. Nixon had fulfilled his promise made in 1968 that he would end the war in Vietnam. He won in a landslide in November 1972 precisely because he kept his promise. By the end of 1972, there were less than 15,000 US military personnel left in Vietnam, i.e., Army advisors and administrators remaining to assist South Vietnam’s military forces. At the end of 1968, just before Nixon took office in January 1969, U.S. troop levels reached 495,000.
The author is a 'born-yesterday' historian... with his sole source, the NYTimes and few, spittled rants from Chris Matthews.
It always comes back to Gays, do these people ever have a thought that doesn’t concern Gays?
Like most “journalists” today Steinberg seems to get his history lessons from pop documentaries and television “news” personalities. An accurate account how congressional Democrats squandered victory in Vietnam is here:
The "D" next to his name had an "R" in it.
Just RAT.
Big let down coming for the Anti American Left coming up.
Does not matter if you elect Hillary in 2008. The second it no longer becomes an issue to beat President Bush over the head with, these same Democrats are magically going to discover why we need to stay in Iraq. It is shaping up to be the big Clinton betrayal for 2008. The same way Bill Clinton did not intend to pursue a “Middle Class Tax cut” in 1992, Hillary knows she will not be able to cut and run from Iraq.
One can argue that we should not be so dependent on ME oil, what cannot be argued is we are depended on it. Like it or not, the free flow of oil from that part of the world is a vital US National Security Interest. Our economic well-being, and thus our national security, depends on it.
Iraq sits on anywhere (depending on whose figures you use) from the second largest, to the fifth largest, oil reserves in the world. No US Administration is going to be able to walk away from Iraq. That is just reality.
I think liberals hate Nixon because of MSM. Influential editors and writers in the MSM hated Nixon because of his successful anti-communism that included the unmasking of Alger Hiss. Like Ken Starr, Nixon would not allow the left to dismiss the truth. The left hates Bush for many reasons. But I think it started with Bush frustrating the left’s attempt to steal the 2000 election. Liberals just hate to be crossed, and carry a grudge.
Your on the street liberal is liberal because of what he gets from the MSM. This person has almost no memory. His memory is supplied by the MSM. But editors at the NYTs, Washington Post, etc, never forget when someone crosses them successfully (e.g. Nixon, Starr, Bush). When that happens, it's personal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.