Bush's own man trashes his SOTU claims on WMDs

[uh Clem]

The Vietnamese did what they wanted without any approval from the USSR. The CIA noted Ho Chi Minh's independence from Moscow in the late 1940s.

Khrushchev had nothing to do with the NLF's actions; that idea is as silly as thinking that Eisenhower gave the go-ahead for the Berlin and Hungarian uprisings in the 1950s.

"North Vietnam" and "South Vietnam" were convenient shorthand terms for the two political entities created in 1954. Both sides agreed that the division of Vietnam was temporary. Let me raise the volume a bit so that this can be heard even out there on Planet Ned: both sides agreed that the division of Vietnam was temporary.

The Republic of Vietnam, aka "South Vietnam," claimed to be the only legitimate government of all Vietnam, not just the south: everything from the Ca Mau peninsula to the Chinese border, kit and kaboodle. (Hanoi made the identical claim, BTW.)

As for the communists-nationalists-Viet Minh-NLF-whatever, the difference between those in the north and those in the south was nothing more than that in the north, they represented the generally recognized government. In the south, they didn't. Thus, in the south, they turned to insurgency -- not surprisingly, since it was the same tactic they'd used against the French and the Japanese.

Of course, they didn't do so immediately. Geneva had called for elections in 1956, and everybody knew that the winner would be Ho Chi Minh. The insurgency began only after the elections were canceled, South Vienam became a US client state, and Saigon began a general repression against all dissidents (left, right, and center).

Hanoi wasn't entirely happy with the insurgency, Ho in particular, at least at first. War was dicey; if there was still some chance of getting reasonably honest, nation-wide elections, then why fight? The north did give logistical help, but no serious manpower until US intervention began tipping the scales against the NLF in the mid-60s.

Gotta run...

[Ned]

uh Clem, I think the Communist world held their fire globally under the Eisenhower-Khruschev detente that was finally brought to an end by the U2 incident. That occurred in May of 1960. It caused the Paris summit to break down. Relations deterioted fast.

The Vietcong were formed in December of 1960.

[mindseye]

Oh, I almost forgot!

*gloats*

[Agathon]

*still gloating*

[Urban Ranger]

Now W orders an indepedent committee to look into this mess, and backpedals like mad.

[Spiffor]

/me gloats even more

[Ned]

Ah the left is now gloating? What Kay has shown is that the Democrats who accused Bush of lying were themselves lying.

If Bush were really clever, he'd appoint Clinton to head the new commission.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The wmd claims remind me of the way Hitler always claimed little countries had attacked Germany just about an hour before the unprovoked surprise attack was launched.

It's also just like the Gulf of Tonkin incident in which North Vietnam was claimed to have fired on US navy ships. The U.S. used this to justify intervention in Vietnam. It never happened.

Oh well - they are paying for it now. The whole war is a just a big pack of lies.

Our destoryer was fireing it guns at than North Vietman town and the North Vietman have the perfect legal right under International war to attack our destoryer for it hostle action.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Wezil
Ned - Bush didn't lie and OJ didn't kill Nicole.

I'm tired of arguing the obvious to people that REFUSE to admit they were in error.

Note - I was given the options of a) believing Bush, or b) believing Saddam. I chose to believe Bush and I was wrong. I can admit what the facts show.



edit: spelling

I watch 98% of the OJ trail on TV an I would have vote not guietry as the jury did. First the State have than very weak case and the local DA make it into a potical case by saying I than going to make than example out of OJ that no black man is going to abuse his white wife.

[Agathon]

* gloats.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned
"Ned, but the real point is that we had been provoking the NVs into an incident. Blowing up bridges and roads is generally considered an act of war, is it not? And Johnson DID use a fictional event to justify the war, not a real one."

Maybe I'm missing something here, but regardless of why we were attacked by North Vietnam, the point is that we were attacked by North Vietnam and not by the Vietcong. The Tonkin Gulf incident provided no legal basis in my view for active combat hostilities against the Vietcong. It did provide a basis for declaration of war on North Vietnam. Johnson did not pursue the enemy that had attacked us. In the end, this failure to pursue the true enemy cost us any chance of victory.

Ned the North was under the USSR and China Nuclear protecting it we have invade NV China would have enter the war with the USSR against us.

[Ned]

Charles, I am not going to dispute that NV was protected against nuclear attack by China and the USSR. I will assume they were for the sake of argument.

But if that were true, the whole strategy in Vietnam was doomed to failure because the North knew we would never do anything decisive to win the war and all they had to do was stay in the "ring" long enough and they would eventually win.

We lost the war the day after the Tonkin Gulf resolution when Johnson began ops in SV but left NV alone save for bombing some weeds.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned
Charles, I am not going to dispute that NV was protected against nuclear attack by China and the USSR. I will assume they were for the sake of argument.

But if that were true, the whole strategy in Vietnam was doomed to failure because the North knew we would never do anything decisive to win the war and all they had to do was stay in the "ring" long enough and they would eventually win.

We lost the war the day after the Tonkin Gulf resolution when Johnson began ops in SV but left NV alone save for bombing some weeds.

Plus if we have invade NV China would have sent it army down into NV to fight us. LBJ did this so we would have won than second term as president, it didnot work out that way, Bush invade Iraq to win than second term and it seem to be backfireing on Bush. I hear that some countries that have troop[s in Iraq now are thinking about pulling then out now.

[Ned]

Charles, Johnson screwed up by committing troops where there was no clear strategy for victory.

That is the lesson we learned from Vietnam more than any other lesson.

[Agathon]

I just saw Blair lie to parliament. He made a claim that he didn't know that the 45 minute claim referred only to battlefield weapons and Robin Cook pointed out that he knew from cabinet meetings and had made public reference to it (in his resignation speec) at the time the PM claimed not to know.

oooooohhhhhh.... lying to the house. He's toast.