Dean's out!

[Nym90]

Especially since Dean will endorse the Dem nominee.

[7,052,770]

Especially since Dean will endorse the Dem nominee.

Yeah, he's said that repeatedly.

[© tweed]

Still, some might go to the Green slug.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I like LBJ as well...
He was probably the second most influential president of the C20th (most influential was FDR), and is responsible for some great domestic policies.
Vietnam wasn't really his fault... the war started under the Kennedy administration and LBJ was tricked by his advisors into intensifying the war.
He has been made a scapegoat for something that wasn't his fault.

[JohnFKennedy]

I like LBJ as well...
He was probably the second most influential president of the C20th (most influential was FDR), and is responsible for some great domestic policies.
Vietnam wasn't really his fault... the war started under the Kennedy administration and LBJ was tricked by his advisors into intensifying the war.
He has been made a scapegoat for something that wasn't his fault.

woah woah woah, Kennedy only sent in "advisors", he didn't send in actual soldiers, Kennedy wouldn't have turned it into a full out war in my opinion.....

LBJ was good for civil rights, but his foreign policy wasn't the best really if we are honest.

[JohnFKennedy]

true.....

[MarkDel]

You guys are technically telling the truth about JFK, but you are "spinning" a little bit.

FACTS

Eisenhower did send in US Military advisers, but at the end of his Presidency, there were exactly 780 advisers in Vietnam....look it up. And in the 1950's, then Senator John Kennedy was a STRONG supporter of sending help to Vietnam to prop up the Diem Government.

At the time of Kennedy's death, there were over 17,000 "advisers" in Vietnam. Kennedy has escalated the situation there significantly. Kennedy had long been telling advisers, who did not agree with him, that Vietnam would NEVER go Communist, like Cuba, on his watch.

This idea that JFK would not have gotten us involved in a war in Vietnam are at best speculative, and at worse, delusional. Left wing spin by people who sought to make JFK a Liberal martyr after his death as they romanticized his existence to a ludicrous level.

If you go back and look at what actually took place from 1954 to 1963, you are likely to reach a different conclusion. It is in fact my contention that Kennedy would not have fought the same "kind of war" that LBJ fought, but he would have fought the war nonetheless. And in my opinion, he would have done so wit FAR greater success than Johnson. Kennedy would never have done anything as stupid as sending several hundred thousand troops into the theater without letting them ATTACK the Communist positions in the North!!! LBJ fought a silly defensive war that sacrificed troops while achieving no objectives...it was in essence a war of attrition and JFK would never have been that stupid. What he would have done was continue widespread use of the Special Forces, combined with Nixon-style aerial bombing. And JFK would have had the popularity in this country to actually threaten the use of tactical nuclear weapons...and if you think that's far fetched, you need to study his behavior in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[JohnFKennedy]

I will study his behaviour, I am reading Robert Dallek's biography of him at the moment but at the moment, I do believe JFK would not have sent in actual troops, he would have kept "advisors" there.

[MarkDel]

JFK,

You do realize of course, that under Kennedy, the term "advisors" was given new meaning to include Green Berets and other Special Forces that were not there under Eisenhower?

[JohnFKennedy]

I know that they were technically soldiers, but they weren't sent there on the pretense of fighting an all out war, they were there to train the ARVN

[MarkDel]

JFK,

Also, Dallek will reach the "Kennedy was a dove" conclusion that Liberals, and seemingly all Baby Boomers, like to popularize. It's weird, Dallek actually presents all of this evidence to the contrary, yet STILL reaches the conclusion that Kennedy would have pulled out of Vietnam...good scholarship...poor analysis.

Check out this link from Harvard about Dallek's book:

http://www.hpronline.org/news/2003/12/07/BooksAndArts/An.Unfinished.War-578472.shtml

[JohnFKennedy]

Have you read "JFK: An Unfinished Life" then?

[JohnFKennedy]

I read that article, it says it is unclear how he would have acted, I personally think that he would have pulled out of Vietnam but under changing circumstances, it is impossible to say how he would have acted.

[MarkDel]

Yes, when it first came out. It's a good book, well researched and well written. Pretty unbiased at most times. But I disagree with some of his ultimate conclusions.

[JohnFKennedy]

Have you read my prediction in history of what would have happened had Kennedy not been assassinated? I know it is highly unlikely, but it would have been nice, and people would still be interested in politics on a larger scale.....

[MarkDel]

No, where can I find that?

[Gustaf]

I am not sure how the Vietnam war could have been handled in a good way, there is no real victory scenario for the US, unless nuking them or in some other way kill all Vietnamese people, or at least those in the North. I don't see the purpose of it though. I think that Vietnam was a big mistake from the beginning.

[JohnFKennedy]

It is in the History forum, I know it is pretty far-fetched, but would be a nice history.....

[Gustaf]

Have you read "JFK: An Unfinished Life" then?

Is that your autobiography?

sorry...

[JohnFKennedy]

lol, nope, it is a biography, I didn't write it

[Gustaf]

lol, nope, it is a biography, I didn't write it

That joke was even worse than mine...

[JohnFKennedy]

that wasn't a joke what i said is all perfectly true, it is a biography by Robert Dallek and thus I didn't write it, I never said that I was JFK tho

[Gustaf]

that wasn't a joke what i said is all perfectly true, it is a biography by Robert Dallek and thus I didn't write it, I never said that I was JFK tho

OK...your signature is JFK, so I made a bade joke on that...I thought you were elaborating on that...

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Plus, I strongly support the Great Society. LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act and the creation of Medicare. The good he did greatly outweighs Vietnam.

Most of the "good" he did amounted to greatly expanding the size, scope, and power of the federal government.  The Great Society and Medicare moved America towards a degree of Socialism that we've grown so dependent on, it would be impossible to turn back the clock.

As far as the Civil Rights Act, it's a shame that this had to be done on the federal level - but then, that's not LBJ's fault.  That's the fault of the racist rednecks who demonstated that states can't be trusted to abide by the U.S. Constitution.

At the end of the day, Federal power expanded more under LBJ than under any other president besides Lincoln and FDR.  But those two at least had national crises to blame for their expansion of government.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"Yes, Mother...Yes....Yes, I know.  You did warn me about my screams."