Why do so many liberals criticize Bush when Kennedy and Johnson killed almost 60,000 Americans in VN?

Question

I've heard people call Bush every name in the book because we are at war and how he is personally responsible for killing American soldiers. How can anyone even be a Democrat after Kennedy and Johnson escalated the Vietnam war which resulted in the deaths of nearly 60K American soldiers, over 300K casualties, and the deaths of at least a million Vietnamese?
I would also like to add how screwed-up we were during the Carter years and how Clinton did absolutely NOTHING but hide reality from American during his administration. I bet the average American didn't even know anything about Al-Quaida even though they had already attacked us and were planning the attack on the WTC.

"Read your history, American involvement in Vietnam began under another Republican, Dwight D. Eisenhower (Kennedy and Johnson "inherited" that war)."
And, they escalated our troop involvement from a few hundred peace keepers to several thousand combatants. I've read my history, and lived it, thanks.

Answer 1

Let me start by saying that neither Irag nor Vietnam were mistakes. We have the responsibilty to protect those who can not fight for themselves.

As for Bush... He is a strong Christian president and the libs can't stand that.

Answer 2

If I may

Kennedy sent in special forces advisers and had decided against a large American involvement, it was Johnson that escalated the war.
And people did criticize, louder than today. remember the protests, remember Kent State. Johnson was forced to refuse the democratic nomination because of it. And it was the Democrats getting the heat, look up the 68 democratic convention.
And we've known about Al Quida since Bush the Elder, remember the first WTC bombings.
Incidentally, how come the first WTC bombing, which took place two months into Clinton's term, is blamed on Clinton because it happened when he was president and the second WTC bombing , eight months into Jr's term, is blamed on Clinton because it was planned during Clinton's term? It would seem to reason that if the first is Clinton's fault, that would make the second Jr's fault and if the second were Clinton's fault than the first one was Bush the Elder's fault.

Answer 3

Read some history. The Vietnam war was highly criticized by not only the Democrats but the Republicans. It caused LBJ the presidency. It almost destroyed the country by putting a line between those for the war and those against. The only difference with that rebellion is that people also blamed the soldiers.
The difference between the two wars is that the majority of the problem in Iraq is between religions and nationalities. The Vietnam war was between communists and a democracy. That was initially a very scary problem during the cold war.
I believe that the US citizens needs to read some history of this country. Especially with the activities of the CIA and how our country used their spies (terrorists) to cause disruption in most countries in the middle east and South America. How we set up despots in countries that would be very brutal. Read the history of Cuba before the communists.
Once we clean up our own act, maybe we can be more able to suggest to people how to act toward us. The bible does talk about throwing the first stone. It should not be us (Democrat or Republican).

Answer 4

Let me ask you a different question -- Why is it when anyone has the temerity to criticize our President (currently Bush, previously Clinton), people immediately deflect the issue to something else.

Why can't we say that Bush is doing a horrible job without having someone bring up Clinton? Heck, I'm a fiscal conservative and am embarassed at how Bush and the Republican Congress spent like drunken sailors and abandoned all fiscal discipline. And the fiasco in Iraq is just that -- a total fiasco -- and it is compounded by the fact that this administration learned nothing from the mistakes of Vietnam. (Even if it was Kennedy/Johnson's fault as you state.)

My suggestion is that we all stop being blindly loyal to political parties and start doing what's best for our country again. Then maybe we will wind up having better choices for the office of President.

Answer 5

The VietNam debacle replaced into in p[rogress until now Kennedy ever took workplace. the U. S. took up the combat after the French pulled out in the Nineteen Fifties. there replaced into an American presence there decrease than Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. the american presence in WWII replaced into provoked by skill of German and jap assaults on American ships, inclusive of freighters and warships. Iraq did no longer provoke this invasion. It replaced into basically the end results of an American government which replaced into the two stupid or erroneous (probable the two). Bush "owns" this profession. He lobbied (and lied) very difficult for it. He additionally bought it as a quick and espresso-fee action. On each and every count sort, Bush is incorrect. He might have even been criminally incorrect. For those motives, Bush might desire to be held in charge for the 4000 deaths.

Answer 6

Wow, you do realize that Johnson did not run for reelection due to the criticism of his handling of the VN war. And thousands of americans died in VN during the Nixon administration.

But since you don't let those facts get in the way, guess you won't let the fact we should had learned from VN that the same war of lies and being a colonial force propping up an inept/corrupt government does not work.
So no hypocrisy here.

Answer 7

I guess you are to young to remember the war protests during Vietnam (today's protests are tame compared to then). Johnson was not very well liked in his day and neither was Nixon.

War is the last resort for obvious reasons. Bush ran into Iraq without a real plan and for very questionable reasons. Clinton was well aware of Al-Quada and stopped the millennium hijackings as well as bringing the people responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center to justice.

You obviously need to read more beyond the Republican propaganda and spin.

A mind that is opened learns much more than one that is closed. Read from several sources to get a better understanding of history.

Answer 8

The war officially started in 1963, Kennedy was killed in !963.
Before that the Americans had advisers in Viet Nam, and did not have any weapons. When they started getting killed thats when our troops were sent in...Actually who was president, had little to do with the fact about the 60000 dead, in a war that I believe we could have won in a week if we wanted to..
but it was good for the big companies economy..
The second part of your question is absolutely right.

Answer 9

99% of your rant is bogus... It's bogus because the Vietnam situation was then, and this is now. Carter's situation has nothing to do with now either and Clinton isn't the president anymore. Also, our involvment in Vietnam began in the Eisenhower administration, at least as far as 'advisors' were concerned. Prior to that we did assist the French in trying to re-establish their colony in Indochina...but again, that's old history. Then we come to the strawman argument concerning the non-existant 'liberals', as evidently you define the word. More bogus hot air. If you care to deal with the situation 'now', you'll see that fully 3/4 of the US population is against this war....that includes folks from both parties, fringe parties and no parties. I think you've been listening to way too much right wing radio...give it a think!

Answer 10

The average American may not have known about A-Quaida but George W Bush knew
President Bill Clinton told him!!
Many didn't realize what Bin Laden was planning until it was too late. Clinton realized it and is the only president to have ordered strikes against Bin Laden--unfortunately, the missiles missed. However, Clinton did try to warn Bush Jr about Bin Laden in a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the U.S." What did Bush Jr do about the memo? NOTHING. Bush did NOTHING for 9 months prior to 9/11.




7-30-1996, WASHINGTON -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch said the compromise bill would prevent international terrorist organizations from raising money in the United States and provide for the swift deportation of international terrorists.

The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities.
regarding President Carter


You'd better wake up and smell the coffee sonny boy
Jimmy Carter started sanctions against USSR
nearly crippling their economy.
He also started secretly funding Afganistans freedom fighters, a brilliant move of foriegn policy genius that Ron Reagan adopted. This funding kept USSR involved in a very unpopular war, people in USSR were sick of their government when their kids were sent home from Afganistan in body bags.
THIS HELPED PUT AN END TO USSR for which
RONALD REAGAN and the REPUBLICANS took full credit for !!!

The liberals were there during Vietnam
we brought the troops home.
Had we have not protested in the streets, they would still be there, and still be dying.

Answer 11

Interesting facts:

Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, was president when we got into WW1

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was, a Democrat, was president we we got into WW2. He died in office and Harry S Truman, a Democrat was sworn in as president. (p.s. Truman, a Democrat was the only president to use weapons of mass destruction...the Atomic Bombs)

Harry S Truman, a Democrat was president when we got into the Korean War.

Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat was president and he ramped-up things in Vietnam.

See a pattern here?