Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Left Masthead
September 3, 2015
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!

Greener Cities Are Best at Taming Urban Heat

Fortune Smiles

Truthdig Bazaar more items

A/V Booth
Print this item

The Johnson-Nixon-Bush Continuum

Posted on Jan 10, 2007
Ted Kennedy

Sen. Ted Kennedy draws the striking parallels between troop “surges” during the Vietnam era and today. (Hint: Back then, the American people were always promised that the next surge would be the last. Fifty thousand U.S. dead bodies later, however .... )

Watch it


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By thomas, January 13, 2007 at 10:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

CK - get your facts right.  kennedy was an enlisted man in the army in the 50s.  his three brothers were in the navy.  two were war heroes.  one lost his life in WWII.  Two lost their lives serving their country.  ted k has spent his life serving his country.  you don’t own patriotism.  If you disagree with ideas, then debate.  get over the knee jerk hate speak.  iraq is too important for that kind of mindlessness.

Report this

By david, January 12, 2007 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

CK - I’m not sure calling Ted Kennedy names advances the ball. The question is whether sending more troops to Iraq - based on the rationale heretofore put forth by the Bush administration, a rationale shaped by its particular view of the politics of the region - is better than adopting a different strategy. There is a mountain of empirical evidence to suggest that America’s “occupy” and/or “provide a structure in which “democracy can thrive” is wildly unrealistic, given the historical cultural and political divides, forces that no American army, no matter how large, could overcome.

Report this

By John, January 12, 2007 at 7:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

of course a Kennedy GOT us into Vietnam.  Teddy should just drive off into the sunset….over the bridge….wait….look out…..ahhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa guggle guggle guggle.

Report this

By CK, January 11, 2007 at 4:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Kennedy is a loud-mouthed alcoholic fathead who never served a day in the military. More troops in Iraq don’t mean an escalating US role as it did in Vietnam. We are already fully involved and have been since the first day of invasion.  The war against the Iraqi military was won a long time ago. The US is an occupation force. More troops mean those troops can better protect themselves and secure the areas until the Iraqi military can do it themselves.

I think the left is actually afraid this new strategy in Iraq might work, more than they are worried about casualties.  Can you imagine how bad it would be for them if democracy and peace eventually flourish in Iraq and the greater region as a result of Bush not retreating?

Report this

By Lee Dekker, January 11, 2007 at 10:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nothing we can do? What’s wrong with impeachment? Why did the framers make sure to include the option of impeachment? This big lie that “there is nothing we can do” has been relentlessly put forth by apologists like Joe Biden. Impeach the bastard. That’s what impeachment was put there for.

Report this

By george S Semsel, January 11, 2007 at 6:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Kennedy, bless him, is right. Unfortunately, neither he, nor anyone else, is capable of doing anything about the actions of the president. The battle was lost long ago.

Report this

By Quy Tran, January 10, 2007 at 6:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

All three of them have had their hands bathing with bloods !

Report this

By Jeanne, January 10, 2007 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There is a difference between then and now. During the Viet Nam War the older generation continued to support the war. Now no one supports it.

What do we do with an administration that has an agenda clearly at odds with the American people, the Congress, and most of the rest of the world? And what do we do with a president who has an agenda that is looking more and more dangerous and out of control?

Report this

By AnnaCatherine, January 10, 2007 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Is Kennedy the only one with the guts to challenge Bush? There’s no reason why Bush should be allowed to make still another disastrous call. We can’t put any more lives on the line to keep his ego intact. This is not about Iraqis. It’s about Bush’s legacy. Worth mentioning: SMU does not want his library.

Report this

By DennisD, January 10, 2007 at 9:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As true now as it was then. Not even the words have changed in over 40 years to justify it. We cannot let history repeat itself.

Report this
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Like Truthdig on Facebook