yes, difficult to disprove a negative..

Still no indication of the factual errors...

Just inuendo from the OT folks.

what does that mean? You're talking about "facts" and you want to hold that as an example?

This obviously is pointless...as are all of Coulter's rants, and Fint's cut and paste of them. Fint does get a chuckle out of it though...

Over the past 50 years, the "wars" we have gotten involved in have been questionable at best. Once we're involved, we have to at some point get out, because there is no "win" in these cases. First is was halting the spread of communism. Now it is halting the spread of terrorism. There is no clear win there. So somebody gets us into an ill-advised conflict, and at some point, somebody has to get us out. Depending on your bias, you can call it "turning your back" or you can call it "intelligent extraction." Maybe it's both. It definitely is sad that good men die on the folly of aged politicians.

No, my reply to you was proof of Coulter's factual error. Your notion that "Nixon let the military run the war" is also a factual error. I was on active duty when Johnson left and Nixon began, the only change was an expansion of target's, otherwise it was precisely the same operation, with the tight control being held in the Pentagon, i.e. by Nixon.

Coulter is, again, a spokesperson to the neocons, the idea she's speaking truth to power is absurd.

Johnson picked the bombing targets. Nixon did not. The pentagon and the in-country generals ran the war under Nixon. Nostatic - you used it first as an example of hyperbole by Coulter - I say that it's factually correct.

You guys call her names, say she needs batteries for a vibrator, a ranter (a little sexist), neocon spokesperson, her words are tripe, and you compare her to Charles Manson (a murderer). And you say she's got a problem...

I think you just can't handle the truth - for the fist time in 40 years there are outlets other than the NYTimes and the networks, and YOU can't handle it!

that's a joke. nice movie quote though...glad to see you're reality-driven.

Were you in the white house with Johnson? With Nixon? The Sec of Defense wasn't involved in that process? Joint Chiefs? Generals? Hasn't Rumsfeld been calling the shots in Iraq? Does that mean that the "White House" has been running the war instead of the Generals?

All these pesky details conveniently obscured by hyperbolic tripe.

Sorry, I call them how I see them. And there is no "truth". That's your *first* mistaken assumption...

LOL!

Nonsense.

Quote:

Nostatic - you used it first as an example of hyperbole by Coulter - I say that it's factually correct.

No, sorry, you're just plain wrong. Coulter appears to be utterly uninformed about Vietnam, which is to be expected. The facts would be counter to the point she was making for the booboise.

Quote:

You guys call her names, say she needs batteries for a vibrator, a ranter (a little sexist), neocon spokesperson, her words are tripe, and you compare her to Charles Manson (a murderer). And you say she's got a problem... I think you just can't handle the truth - for the fist time in 40 years there are outlets other than the NYTimes and the networks, and YOU can't handle it!

When Coulter prints the truth, we'll say so. So far, nothing in that piece was more than a "factoid" filled rant.

It's a well known fact 9I'm sure even Pat would agree) that Johnson actully poured over the maps and singlehandedly picked the targets for the pilots in Southe-East Asia.

With respect to Iraq, surely you know that Rumsfeld has been inegral - as all Sec Def's are, to the prosecution of the war. However, the generals on the ground manage the "pesky" details. The Sec Def oversees the whole operation from macro perspective.

Again though, where are Coulters errors?

BTW - the movie quote is innuendo and opinion. I will stipulate to that.

It is 100% factually accurate that the democratic congress cut off all funding to South Vietnam.

It is also factually accurate that in 1973 when the north launched a major invasion and said funding to the south was intact that the South Vietnamese kicked their asses and repelled the invasion.

Just as it is factually accurate that in 1975 with no US aid the South got steamrolled.

I would ask you, is it possible for the Democrats to have a phased withdrawal, or, in her opinion, will it it always be "cut and run"?

Cindy Shehan and the rest of the lunatic left is trying to employ the same tactic with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan today.

How much blood there must be on the hands of the left? How many millions died or fled South Vietnam after Congress cut off funding for the war and the North invaded?

Ask me?

To me, a phased withdrawal is just a nice term for surrender.

“The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.”
~George Orwell

"It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."
~ Douglas MacArthur

Maybe we should follow Murtha and find this thing from Okinawa!

With substantial emergency military aid from the US government, they rushed in the new TOW missile equipped UH-1M's. That effort stopped the North Vietnamese armor columns dead. So, you're in error.

Quote:

Just as it is factually accurate that in 1975 with no US aid the South got steamrolled.

Kissinger et al wanted a reescalation via military funding, the US congress said no, that is correct, which occured in 1975. The war was over, as far as Americans were concerned, and said as much to their congressmen. I was certainly happy about it. The south-Vietnamese government was being run by a corrupt war-lord by this time, who should have met the same fate as Diem. I think he lives in Southern California these days, occaisionally appearing on TV.

Pat, Pat, Pat - you're all over the map. Focus - what did Coulter say that was in error?

Text of Nixon's "Peace with Honor Speech" in Jan of '73, all American Forces were to be removed from S Viet Nam in 60 days.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=725

As FastPat said, the War was over.

In fact, the Case-Church Amendment was passed with a veto-proof majority in both House and Senate.

Actually, AH-1s with HEAT armed 2.75" rockets also helped to stop said columns dead, but stopped they were, so i'm not sure how i'm in error...

I was not arguing the right or wrong of things, merely observing facts.

The fact is in 1973 with US support the commies were stopped, and in 1975 without US support they were not.

"The quickest way to end a war is to lose it."
~Orwell

Which is exactly what we did. We should've saved ourselves the time and just left in 1965.(seriously, what an unneccesary "war" that was) But the fact is, Nixon's peace with honor was merely a euphemism for "Surrender".