alt.politics.bush

stuff_stuff@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:17:51 -0600, David Hartung
> wrote:
>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> David Hartung wrote in
>>> news:rIadnWzTwIbPCzPanZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> David Hartung wrote in
>>>>> news:PYOdnRt3noDJFTPanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> stuff_stuff@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While you're at it, what do YOU think did all that killing and dying
>>>>>>> accomplished?
>>>>>> In the end, nothing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am an eternal optimist, I believe that had the war been prosecuted
>>>>>> properly, and had the military been given the task of winning, the war
>>>>>> would have been over well before 1968, and today, Vietnam would not be
>>>>>> a communist country.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact remains that Johnson had no intention of ever winning the
>>>>>> war, and by the time Nixon was elected, the American people would have
>>>>>> refused to support he sort of all out action a victory would have
>>>>>> required.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It was Johnson's fault that Nixon campaigned on a
>>>>> plank to end the war and withdraw troop from Vietnam?
>>>> Just out of curiosity, who do think was responsible for the initial
>>>> escalation in Vietnam?
>>>
>>>
>>> "President Eisenhower's Memoires, Mandate for Change, page
>>> 372, shows that he believed Ho Chi Minh would have won any
>>> free election in Vietnam in 1956. This is certainly why the
>>> U.S. did not permit such an election, though the Geneva
>>> Convention of 1954 required it."
>>>
>>> http://www.chss.montclair.edu/English/furr/ike1.html
>> Now who is avoiding questions?
>
>
> There were several escalations before Johnson's. You said "initial".
> Words mean things.

My apologies.