Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zoltan! who wrote (47782)	7/29/1999 10:44:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 108807

This time I think that Norman aced it. Thanks for such a substantial contribution to the discussion! I would like to underline this from the article: Since Kennedy's death, the army of hagiographers who have worked so hard to transform him posthumously into a liberal of their own stripe have tried to persuade the world that if he had lived, he would have pulled out of Vietnam the American troops that he himself had sent there. Yet the weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly on the other side. Thus, in sanctioning the assassination of Diem in 1963, he transformed the American role. Having previously assisted South Vietnam in its war against the Communists of the North and their Viet Cong surrogates in the South, the U.S. now assumed primary responsibility for that war. Succeeding Kennedy as President, Lyndon B. Johnson assumed, and attempted to fulfill, this new responsibility through gradual "escalation." In this, he had the approval and encouragement of the very same advisers who had surrounded Kennedy (including Dean Rusk, Robert McNamara and McGeorge Bundy). To be sure, except for Rusk, these men later jumped ship and rushed as fast as their aging feet could carry them to the head of the antiwar parade. But in office, they all backed the course Johnson was taking. And so, by the way, and for a long time, did Robert Kennedy himself from his court-in-exile. There is simply no substantial reason to think that JFK would have acted any differently from Johnson had he survived and won a second term.