Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 42041 - 42060 of total 52587 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 29, 2013 - 04:54pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
jghedge

climber
Mar 29, 2013 - 05:05pm PT
Always gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that the taxes I pay from working 16-hour days are going to support the failed conservative repub jobless Red States

And isn't it nice that conservatives are so acknowledging of that fact, and so grateful!

And they always show how grateful they are when I travel to those states for work, as well

It only took me 2 trips to Kentucky to learn not to use my ATM card anywhere but banks and airports

Whip it out at a gas station, or at a hotel, and your account will be cleaned out before you get home - guaranteed.


Thanks, Failed Red State Losers!

And keep voting repub - it's doing wonders for your economy!


TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 29, 2013 - 05:06pm PT
jghedge

climber
Mar 29, 2013 - 05:08pm PT
Hahahaha

Again TGT thinks if there's no housing bubble, then Obama must be screwing up the economy

I guess if I dug ditches for a living I might agree
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 29, 2013 - 06:45pm PT
It's those imaginary Marxists

and the pinko commies, and illegals, Muslims, Jews, women, gays, wet backs, blacks, and the atheists,
It's their fault, for not being part of God's plan

on another note, we whites need more guns to protect ourselves from THEM
Bharata

Mountain climber
Pune
Mar 29, 2013 - 06:52pm PT
jghedge good that you are back to being happy poster again. Liberals winning is the important activity no matter who is correct now days


Did you admire how Democrat politician Steven Brooks of Nevada fought
the ravenous California police dog and get tased on the 15 freeway? Such courage to do stupid things can be your inspiration when no other path can be followed.

http://www.ktvu.com/ap/ap/california/ex-nevada-assemblyman-steven-brooks-arrested-in-ca/nW7Md/

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NEVADA_ASSEMBLYMAN_EXPELLED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-03-29-17-06-16

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2013/03/28/nevada-assembly-ousts-embattled-steven-brooks/

Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 29, 2013 - 07:02pm PT
Hey Joe,

you are getting what you want

most everyone thinks and posts regarding your arrogance and ego

you get a gold star, feel beter now?

Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 29, 2013 - 07:04pm PT
WTF?
I love all Joe's posts

I don't know why all of sudden Joe has stuck a nerve with some
but you should just get over it is my advice
jghedge

climber
Mar 29, 2013 - 07:04pm PT
"Did you admire how Democrat politician Steven Brooks of Nevada fought
the ravenous California police dog and get tased on the 15 freeway?"

AKA your average drive back to LA after losing everything in Vegas

Been there done that
jghedge

climber
Mar 29, 2013 - 07:07pm PT
"most everyone thinks and posts regarding your arrogance and ego"

I'm aspiring to Coz status

The shame of anonymous people who've never met me and never will forming negative opinions about my personality (which they know nothing about) is...strangely soothing...
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 29, 2013 - 07:15pm PT


PTSD in Soldiers Found to be linked to a War’s Level of Morality
Thursday, March 28, 2013


Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may be linked to more than the combat of war, but also to actions that violate a soldier’s sense of morality, according to new research.



The study, which will be published in the April issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, found that PTSD levels can be influenced by the amount of support the nation has for the war itself, which can impact the perception of the conflict’s moral standing. Although citizens may express support for their nation’s troops, a wide lack of support for the war being fought—such as displayed through anti-war protests—can cause a soldier to feel that his actions may be in violation of what is morally correct. The result is an increase the level of PTSD in that soldier.



“What we would suggest, however, is that it is not protest, per se, that puts a soldier’s mental health at risk, but the initial decision to go to war,” David Webber of the University of Alberta and the study’s lead author told Raw Story. “War protest usually only occurs when that war is unfounded. If war is enacted for legitimate reasons, the public will usually support that effort.”



Moral injuries that soldiers bring home from war are similar, but not identical, to those sustained during combat. These problems can include deep shame, guilt and rage.



“The clinical psychological literature suggests that a key factor in PTSD experienced by soldiers at war is the guilt that is experienced from perpetrated acts of violence that violate moral standards,” said Webber. “This is why in our study we focused on guilt-related symptoms. In the sense that killing is deemed immoral in most cases, and soldiers are asked to kill, it’s only if a soldier is able to view that killing as different or acceptable (i.e., moral), that guilt should not arise.”



Retired Colonel Elspeth Ritchie, former psychiatry consultant to the Army surgeon general and currently the chief clinical officer at the District of Columbia's Department of Mental Health, told the Associated Press that moral injuries are not a medical problem, which can make them difficult to treat.



There is a view that, in spite of overlapping symptoms, moral injury—which isn’t necessarily caused by an actual traumatic event—is not the equivalent of PTSD, which is generally associated with nightmarish memories of frightening combat experiences. Not differentiating between the two “renders soldiers automatically into mental patients instead of wounded souls," stated Tyler Boudreau, a former Marine captain and Iraq veteran, who resigned for reasons of conscience. “It’s far too easy for people…[to] donate a few bucks and whisk them off to the closest shrink...out of sight and out of mind," he wrote in The Massachusetts Review.

-Danny Biederman, Noel Brinkerhoff
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 29, 2013 - 07:24pm PT
Cheating Our Children

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: March 28, 2013 587 Comments

So, about that fiscal crisis — the one that would, any day now, turn us into Greece. Greece, I tell you: Never mind.


Over the past few weeks, there has been a remarkable change of position among the deficit scolds who have dominated economic policy debate for more than three years. It’s as if someone sent out a memo saying that the Chicken Little act, with its repeated warnings of a U.S. debt crisis that keeps not happening, has outlived its usefulness. Suddenly, the argument has changed: It’s not about the crisis next month; it’s about the long run, about not cheating our children. The deficit, we’re told, is really a moral issue.

There’s just one problem: The new argument is as bad as the old one. Yes, we are cheating our children, but the deficit has nothing to do with it.

Before I get there, a few words about the sudden switch in arguments.

There has, of course, been no explicit announcement of a change in position. But the signs are everywhere. Pundits who spent years trying to foster a sense of panic over the deficit have begun writing pieces lamenting the likelihood that there won’t be a crisis, after all. Maybe it wasn’t that significant when President Obama declared that we don’t face any “immediate” debt crisis, but it did represent a change in tone from his previous deficit-hawk rhetoric. And it was startling, indeed, when John Boehner, the speaker of the House, said exactly the same thing a few days later.

What happened? Basically, the numbers refuse to cooperate: Interest rates remain stubbornly low, deficits are declining and even 10-year budget projections basically show a stable fiscal outlook rather than exploding debt.

So talk of a fiscal crisis has subsided. Yet the deficit scolds haven’t given up on their determination to bully the nation into slashing Social Security and Medicare. So they have a new line: We must bring down the deficit right away because it’s “generational warfare,” imposing a crippling burden on the next generation.

What’s wrong with this argument? For one thing, it involves a fundamental misunderstanding of what debt does to the economy.

Contrary to almost everything you read in the papers or see on TV, debt doesn’t directly make our nation poorer; it’s essentially money we owe to ourselves. Deficits would indirectly be making us poorer if they were either leading to big trade deficits, increasing our overseas borrowing, or crowding out investment, reducing future productive capacity. But they aren’t: Trade deficits are down, not up, while business investment has actually recovered fairly strongly from the slump. And the main reason businesses aren’t investing more is inadequate demand. They’re sitting on lots of cash, despite soaring profits, because there’s no reason to expand capacity when you aren’t selling enough to use the capacity you have. In fact, you can think of deficits mainly as a way to put some of that idle cash to use.

Yet there is, as I said, a lot of truth to the charge that we’re cheating our children. How? By neglecting public investment and failing to provide jobs.

You don’t have to be a civil engineer to realize that America needs more and better infrastructure, but the latest “report card” from the American Society of Civil Engineers — with its tally of deficient dams, bridges, and more, and its overall grade of D+ — still makes startling and depressing reading. And right now — with vast numbers of unemployed construction workers and vast amounts of cash sitting idle — would be a great time to rebuild our infrastructure. Yet public investment has actually plunged since the slump began.

Or what about investing in our young? We’re cutting back there, too, having laid off hundreds of thousands of schoolteachers and slashed the aid that used to make college affordable for children of less-affluent families.

Last but not least, think of the waste of human potential caused by high unemployment among younger Americans — for example, among recent college graduates who can’t start their careers and will probably never make up the lost ground.

And why are we shortchanging the future so dramatically and inexcusably? Blame the deficit scolds, who weep crocodile tears over the supposed burden of debt on the next generation, but whose constant inveighing against the risks of government borrowing, by undercutting political support for public investment and job creation, has done far more to cheat our children than deficits ever did.

Fiscal policy is, indeed, a moral issue, and we should be ashamed of what we’re doing to the next generation’s economic prospects. But our sin involves investing too little, not borrowing too much — and the deficit scolds, for all their claims to have our children’s interests at heart, are actually the bad guys in this story.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 29, 2013 - 07:48pm PT
well Joe

when it quacks like a duck

then it IS a duck

you being the duck


and Dr F?

you obviously have not been following nor know nothing about what you are now "advising" others on

kinda doesn't make sense to do that, does it
jghedge

climber
Mar 29, 2013 - 08:04pm PT
"you being the duck"

Hahahahaha

You don't know me from Adam, pal
jghedge

climber
Mar 30, 2013 - 12:30am PT

And this is with repub gerrymandering!

Credit: jghedge

83 nonwhite House members

77 dem, 6 repub


White people will be the racial minority in the US by 2020


The Repub Party Is Doomed.
WBraun

climber
Mar 30, 2013 - 05:57pm PT
Here's a gem for you Dr F

Bush and Cheney Dishonored War Dead (November 2009 Story by Demand)

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/03/30/bush-and-cheney-dishonored-war-dead-november-2009-story-by-demand/

But Obama, he went and did not dishonor.

Bush and Cheney should be sent to firing squad by Bushmaster rifles for treason ......
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 30, 2013 - 06:02pm PT
Thanks WB
It's great to see other concerned adults aiding in the education of what's going on

Did you see the new cable Documentary of Cheney!!!
http://www.sho.com/sho/reality-docs/titles/3370771/the-world-according-to-dick-cheney#/index

It's a must see
He is from the dark side
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 30, 2013 - 07:31pm PT
The Democratic Party 101: A Teacher Gives Republicans A Lesson In Facts


2013/03/30
By Molly Gum


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/30/the-democratic-party-101-a-teacher-gives-republicans-a-lesson-in-facts/

This was a response that I wrote to a family friend who took issue with what she perceived to be the Democratic platform. It ended up being far longer than I expected, but every word was necessary. I hope you will read this in its entirety.


Dear Friend,

You said that conservatives believe that rights are endowed by our Creator while liberals believe that rights are provided by the government. I take issue with that notion; liberals believe that the government has a responsibility to protect and defend our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not define them or interpret their limitations for us. As a Democrat, I take that to believe that each individual is entitled to live a free and happy life in any way they choose as long as they do not hurt another person or interfere with another person’s liberties. The government doesn’t give us our rights; it makes a promise to protect them. It is my belief that no person has the liberty to tell someone what is right for them. We don’t always stop to recognize that our circumstances are often much different from someone else’s, and that what might be right of us isn’t necessarily right for them. That is one of the primary reasons that I am so socially liberal; I can choose what is right for my own life as long as I don’t harm anyone else, but I have no right to tell someone else how to live their own life. In contrast, banning something like abortion or gay marriage imposes a single view on everyone with no room for personal choice. That is not freedom. That is not upholding the creed that “all men are created equal,” and that is where my biggest qualms with the Republican Party lie.

Our Constitution says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” Telling someone that they do not have the right to make decisions about their own body or marry the person they love is not upholding our liberties. Denying help to the most vulnerable among us is not promoting “the general Welfare,” and stigmatizing them as lazy and parasitic is, in my view, obscenely iniquitous and injudicious. There will always be people who take advantage of the system, but the vast majority of people receiving government aid are hard-working, and often disadvantaged individuals: veterans, children, the disabled, single mothers, widows and widowers, the elderly, the mentally challenged… The notion that everyone can climb to the top if they just work hard is a myth. It sounds beautiful in theory, but the fact of the matter is that children who grow up in poverty have everything stacked against them. Yes, the occasional exception is out there, and my respect goes out to those incredible individuals, but this is not the reality for 99% of others who share their circumstances. People get caught up in a cycle of poverty that becomes near impossible to escape. If you grew up in a family that had nothing and you had to drop out of school to help pay the bills, when do you have time to get an education and make something of yourself? And the sad truth is that most of the people who live in these circumstances do not actually receive any federal or state aid. The ones that do receive food stamps and health care for their children, and my God, it’s the least that we can do for them. My cousin would not have health care or groceries without the state aid that her mother receives. Should we tell her mother that she just needs to go out and work harder to provide for her daughter, as if she isn’t already working as hard as she can? She was raised by parents who were drug addicts. There were times when she didn’t even have a place to live. She never had a chance to develop the life she deserved. Do her life circumstances not justify the paltry aid that she receives? Should we punish the innocent for being born into life circumstances they did not ask for or deserve? Should we not give them a chance to escape that cycle? What would our nation look like if we just left these people to fend for themselves? We would be ransacked by poverty, and it would seep into every corner of our nation.

I too believe that each individual is entitled to the fruits of their labor, but I don’t see this as a black and white issue. We are members of a dynamic economy that requires efforts and contributions from all angles in order to function properly. Businesses need labor to run efficiently and reap profits, and workers need businesses to offer them employment. Neither side can function or succeed without the other. At the same time, in order for any of this to be possible, we need a government that protects the common good and enforces protections to ensure that the market runs efficiently. Laissez faire sounds great in theory, but an entirely unregulated free market is an unpredictable and unstable system, and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Adam Smith’s invisible hand is a guarantee. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said, “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.” Many of the services provided by the government, like education and infrastructure, strengthen our nation and give us the opportunity to become active and productive participants in our society and economy. Research shows that no personal or government investment yields greater returns than education; yet, the education budget has been dramatically slashed at the federal and state levels over the past decade.




As a Democrat, I believe that our society and economy are dynamic entities, and no single person, industry, business, or government can succeed independently of their counterparts. As a result, we all have a responsibility to do our part to contribute to the “general welfare” of our nation. Citizens pay income and sales taxes, business provide jobs and markets, and the government provides services that protect and care for its people. The fruits of our labor include our personal income along with the services and infrastructure that our taxes buy for us. I don’t know about you, but I would rather not privatize and pay out of pocket for the use of freeways, first responders, education, and other publicly funded programs. That is why we pay taxes: so that these services and protections are available and accessible for all of us. I believe whole-heartedly in personal responsibility and individual rights, but we must not forget that it takes a group effort for an economy and society to exist in the first place—an economy and society that gives us the opportunity to cultivate our individual passions and achieve the life that we want for ourselves. I have worked tirelessly to accomplish the things that I have, but I could not have accomplished those things without the platform that was provided to me by my government and economy. No, our government is not perfect, but it has made this nation a better place to live than most places on earth. I believe that Senator Elizabeth Warren put it best: “There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there – good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory… Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea – God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Under President Clinton, federal tax revenue hovered around 20% of GDP, approximately 2% higher than the average rate for the preceding five decades. While Americans in the top two tax brackets were paying higher tax rates, our economy was thriving, we were running budget surpluses, and unemployment was around 4.5%, the lowest it had been since World War II. Certainly, some of the policy changes that occurred under the Clinton Administration contributed to the financial crisis that occurred in the following decade, most notably the nullification of Glass-Steagall and the implementation of the Community Reinvestment Act. I don’t want you to think that I am disregarding these issues, I am just limiting my focus to tax rates and revenue at the moment. After the Bush tax cuts went into play, federal tax revenue fell to around 18% of GDP on average, although it dipped a bit lower than that for a few years. As a result of these tax cuts, the federal government lost $5.01 trillion in potential revenue since 2001. We had a solid and effective budget during the Clinton years (which to be fair, can be attributed to compromise between Congressional Republicans and the President) and a thriving economy, but the Bush Tax Cuts made it impossible to present a budget that was even remotely comparable to the previous decade. We no longer had money to effectively fund education, research, renewable energy, infrastructure and other discretionary spending that serves as an investment in a growing and innovative economy (things that we were easily paying for while still running a surplus under Clinton).

In my view, we did not have a spending issue at this point, we had a revenue issue. Perhaps this is where our ideologies differ, but I would personally rather pay a slightly higher tax rate and have a thriving economy that is rich with opportunity than pay a lower tax rate and have an economy that blatantly favors the highest earners. Statistics consistently and blatantly demonstrate that every time tax rates were reduced over the past century, the income inequality gap grew drastically. The poorest Americans got poorer, the richest Americans got richer, and the middle class remained hopelessly stagnant. This is the point where Republicans usually misinterpret or misrepresent Democratic views. We don’t believe that everyone should share an equal size piece of the pie; that is unrealistic, unfair, and fatal to a capitalist economy. What we do believe is that the income inequality gap should not be so needlessly massive. In the Reagan years alone, the top 1% of earners in the U.S. saw their incomes increase by 60% while the bottom 40% saw their incomes decrease by an average of 15%. Middle-class incomes largely stagnated or decreased slightly (all of these numbers come from the Congressional Budget Office). Under George W. Bush’s tax breaks and deregulation, the top 1% saw an additional 70% increase in their income while the bottom 40% lost another 15% and the middle-class once again remained stagnant. This can be largely attributed to the massive tax breaks given to the top 2% of earners. Rather than paying a ratio of their income in the same way that the other 98% of Americans did, these top earners were provided with credits, deductions, loopholes, and exemptions that allowed them to pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than those in the bottom three tax brackets when all was said and done. Someone who makes $5 million per year only has to pay payroll taxes on their income up to $250,000. That is less than 1% of their income while you and I have to pay 6.2% of our total income to payroll taxes. I have no problem with entrepreneurs and innovators making enormous profits, but I do have a problem with them having more leeway in their taxes than the working class, especially when they never have to struggle to make ends meet.

When the financial crisis hit in 2009 and unemployment skyrocketed, the federal government took an average loss of $418.17 billion per year in income tax revenue for a total of $2.1 trillion by 2012. Most of these people ended up on the unemployment payroll which added even more to our loss in revenue. In the meantime, the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP actually shrank during each consecutive year at the fastest rate since World War II, something economists warned would result in further job loss. So, to answer your question: no, I do not think we have a spending problem. I think we have a revenue problem, a tax code problem, an unemployment problem, and a corporate regulation problem. In the U.S. today, the top 1% of earners own more than 40% of the nation’s wealth while the bottom 80% of U.S. workers own just 7%. Is there really nothing wrong with that picture? I’m not advocating for equal distribution, but, My God, could we level the playing field even just a little bit? Because of these statistics, Democrats do not see cutting spending as the solution; we see fair taxation and loophole/deduction closures as the solution. Cutting spending will do nothing to revive our economy and reduce unemployment. In fact, in a recent National Association for Business Economics poll of 49 nonpartisan economists, 95% of them agreed that spending cuts will hurt economic growth. Cutting spending results in cutting jobs and puts more people on unemployment. If you want to cut spending, let’s talk about corporate subsidies. Cutting oil subsidies alone would open up more than $8 billion for investments like education or paying off the debt. Furthermore, placing this financial debacle on the shoulders of President Obama is highly unfair, seeing as President Reagan tripled that nation debt by adding $2 trillion and Bush doubled it again adding another $4 trillion. The debt added under President Obama can be explained by the circumstances I discussed above, not by reckless spending as some people would have us believe.

The final point I would like to make is about who our political parties actually represent. Based on the recent political climate in Washington, I believe that Republicans seek to serve the interest of their corporate and religious sponsors while the Democrats seek to serve the people. More than 94% of Mitt Romney’s campaign donations came from corporate sponsors and financial institutions while 47% (ironic number) of Obama’s came from private individuals who gave $200 or less. The legislation alone tells the story. In the past 4 years, Republicans have introduced more than 1,000 bills trying to limit female reproductive rights, and focused the remainder of their efforts on stripping away corporate regulations and cutting tax rates for top earners. That is supposed to be a party that fights for the American people? They would like us to believe so, and at one point they were, but somewhere along the way that stopped being the truth. This is not the Republican Party that most of us once had enormous respect for. Democrats are certainly not perfect and they certainly serve their own special interest groups at times, but their mission has always been and always will be to fight for the individual citizen and ensure their right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, and they have never lost sight of that promise.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 31, 2013 - 07:58am PT

This month, I spoke at an event commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Watergate scandal with some of its survivors at the National Press Club. While much of the discussion looked back at the historic clash with President Nixon, I was struck by a different question: Who actually won? From unilateral military actions to warrantless surveillance that were key parts of the basis for Nixon's impending impeachment, the painful fact is that Barack Obama is the president that Nixon always wanted to be.

Four decades ago, Nixon was halted in his determined effort to create an "imperial presidency" with unilateral powers and privileges. In 2013, Obama wields those very same powers openly and without serious opposition. The success of Obama in acquiring the long-denied powers of Nixon is one of his most remarkable, if ignoble, accomplishments. Consider a few examples:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/25/nixon-has-won-watergate/2019443/
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 31, 2013 - 08:22am PT
LBJ Tapes Show Richard Nixon Committed Treason By Sabotaging Vietnam Peace Talks

By Eric Brown | March 17 2013 3:18 PM
http://www.ibtimes.com/lbj-tapes-show-richard-nixon-may-have-committed-treason-sabotaging-vietnam-peace-talks-1131819


Recordings Suggest LBJ Knew About Richard Nixon's Treason


Newly released tapes recorded during Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency have confirmed long-held rumors that in 1968, then-presidential candidate Richard M. Nixon worked to sabotage Vietnam War peace talks.


The LBJ tapes were recently declassified and released by the Johnson library in Austin, Texas. According to the BBC’s summary of the tapes, not only did Nixon possibly commit treason, but LBJ knew about it and decided not to expose him in the closing days of an election that Nixon barely won.

While Nixon became infamous for his tendency to record nearly every conversation during his presidency, which proved to be his undoing, he wasn’t the first commander in chief to document everything so thoroughly. In fact, Nixon seems to have gotten the idea to keep an extensive set of recordings from LBJ himself. John F. Kennedy also taped some of his meetings.

In the summer of 1968, the Paris peace talks were under way, working to find a diplomatic solution to the Vietnam War. While the talks seemed to be going well, by October, South Vietnam had dropped out, just as Johnson was about to negotiate an end to all bombings in North Vietnam. The Democratic nominee, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, belatedly called for a bombing halt, and closed the gap with Nixon in the final days.

The reason for the Saigon government's withdrawal? Richard Nixon had convinced the South Vietnamese delegates that they would get a better peace deal under his presidency. Nixon’s campaign relied heavily on the war continuing, and he saw an end to the bombings as an grave threat to his campaign.

And while Nixon sabotaged the talks, he publicly denied any knowledge or involvement in the South’s withdrawal, ultimately prolonging the war for five more years. His actions could have conceivably resulted in treason charges if Johnson had made the news public.

Nixon had been suspected of sabotaging the talks for years, but the new tapes released by the LBJ library prove that Johnson was aware of his actions.

"We have found that our friend, the Republican nominee, our California friend, has been playing on the outskirts with our enemies and our friends both, he has been doing it through rather subterranean sources,” Johnson told Sen. Richard Russell, D-Ga., in one taped phone call. “Mrs. Chennault is warning the South Vietnamese not to get pulled into this Johnson move."

Anna Chan Chennault, the Chinese-born widow of World War II aviation legend Claire Chennault, was a Republican activist and Nixon's emissary to the South Vietnamese. She is still alive at age 87.

Why did Johnson refuse to break the news? In part, it would mean admitting that he had bugged several ambassadors’ phones, which also might not sit well with the American public. Johnson informed Humphrey of Nixon’s actions, though he ultimately decided not to make the announcement in the vain hope that he was on track to win anyway.

In the end, Nixon used Johnson’s “failure” to end the Vietnam War as a major selling point, even citing the South’s withdrawn from peace talks as a black mark against Johnson. Nixon won by an extremely small margin and once in office, escalated the war for years before negotiating for peace in 1973.

While the confirmation of Nixon’s behavior is shocking enough, the LBJ tapes also reveal that the Democratic president at one point had a secret plan to re-enter the 1968 presidential election at the last second. In the spring, after strong showings by the antiwar candidates Eugene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy, Johnson abruptly announced that he would not run for a second term, and Humphrey entered the race in his place.

However, Johnson began to doubt his decision and secretly decided to make a surprise appearance at the Democratic Convention in Chicago, which had decended into a series of increasingly violent protests and riots. Ultimately, Johnson backed out of the plan due to the Secret Service’s concerns for his safety at the convention. As a result, Humphrey became the Democratic candidate and Nixon became president.


10s of thousands Americans died after Nixon sabotaged the Peace talks that would have ended the war just before the election.
Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush 2, millions dead because Republicans don't care about people's lives, it's all about having Power to abuse.
And yet, people think they are the protectors of freedoms and liberty, what a joke, These people Are the Problem. They are just a cult of easily manipulated morons.
Messages 42041 - 42060 of total 52587 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews