Kennedy had actually ordered the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam less than 2 months before his assassination. After his death that bit was swept under the rug. There were only 17,000 troops in Vietnam at the time, I do believe Kennedy knew it was a no win situation and wanted out.

From Robert McNamaras 1995 book of memoirs "In Retrospect"

It was loaned to me some years ago. I really should give it back.

Chapter 3, titled “The Fateful Fall of 1963: August 24–November 22, 1963”:


A pivotal period of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, punctuated by three important events: the overthrow and assassination of South Vietnam’s president Ngo Dinh Diem; President Kennedy’s decision on October 2 to begin the withdrawal of U.S. forces; and his assassination fifty days later.

But would he switch back to the Dems, or would he seek to move the Republican Party back to the middle? Also, since the TEA party people generally agree that taxes should be lower and regulations should be reviewed and many of them reversed, would he align at least partially with them, in your view? Would he continue Obama's weak foreign policy, or seek to make it more robust, like Bush and Rubio?

It's an interesting discussion we have going here.

It would have been really helpful if Bush 43's failed war in Iraq didn't spawn Al Qaeda In Iraq, which then spawned ISIS.

Similarly, it would have been nice if Bush 43's failed war in Iraq didn't create a power vacuum that encouraged Iran to start building centrifuges in 2006, i.e. before Obama was president.

It's odd that conservatives never take responsibility for their handiwork, yet bellyache when others haven't fixed everything that the conservatives have broken.

If you didn't want a mess, then you shouldn't have created it by losing the war (or, more to the point, by failing with the occupation.) Well done, guys.

Screwing up the occupation is the big one. Highly recommend "Fiasco" for anyone who has not read it. You will be shaking you head in disbelief.

I think the lesson here is that we must not count on your people to clean up our messes. I thought that's why your infallible people were elected - they had all the answers that Bush's people didn't have.

As someone on another forum noted, if a Republican wins the Presidency, he will be blamed for what Obama did or didn't do. If a Democrat wins, blame reverts to Bush.

Obama is cleaning up the mess to the extent that is possible. Hence, the multinational effort to negotiate with Iran and the air/drone campaign against ISIS and other terrorist groups, which accounts for the US' inability to wage a successful ground war.

For a group that spends so much time yammering about personal responsibility, you sure aren't any good at assuming it. When a right-winger starts talking about personal responsibility, it invariably means blaming someone else.

It's to be remembered that Robert McNamara was one of the strongest supporters for building up the US Forces in Vietnam. Not long before his death he made the statement "we were wrong"

Kennedy may have begun the withdrawal of US forces just before his death but there's no getting away from the fact that there was a definite possibility that the South was going to fall to the North. Where would that have left Kennedy after his inaugural speech that the US would bear any burden in the cause of freedom? Sound more than a bit hollow right? Once again also it's worth considering the thinking of the time that the fall of South Vietnam could have meant the fall of Cambodia, Laos and Thailand.

Would he have lost the next election because of withdrawing form South Vietnam. Seen as weak and indecisive ? The American public weren't against the war at the beginning. It was only after pumping in almost half a million troops into South Vietnam but the body bags coming back by the hundreds, the war dragging on, no victory in sight that the doubts began to set in and the Tet offensive finally doomed just about any remaining support for the war.

I often think if Nixon had won in 1960 (and it was a close call) how history would have changed. Nixon was a war hawk and Kruschev knew it. Krushchev had seen Kennedy's disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion, his failure to use the Air force to back up the anti-Castro forces during that invasion and their humiliating route at the hands of Castro's army. Nikita figured Kennedy for an amateur and a bit of a wimp and because of that he had few qualms about placing Soviet missiles in Cuba later on. I doubt he would have done the same had Nixon been President.

What would have happened over Vietnam is anyone's guess. Perhaps Nixon would have listened more to his military men than Johnson did, men like Curtis LeMay who was for bombing the living crap out of North Vietnam and bringing Ho to the peace conference table very quickly and avoiding the long costly war that did actually happen.

Later Nixon did manage to bring the North Vietnamese to the conference table when he became President

People only seem to remember Nixon for Watergate but aside from getting the US out of Vietnam he brought Communist China in from the cold which was a major diplomatic achievement in itself.

When I look at types like Trump and Cruz, Nixon by comparison would be one hundred times a better choice than either of them

I think Reagan would have taken one look at Trump, Cruz, Palin and the Tea Party and rejoined the Dems as a bit right of center conservative Democrat

That hasn't been working too well for Mancin and I can't really think of any other right of center conservative Democrats, can you name some for us?

I suspect that Reagan would have told them to behave. The 11th commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any Republican."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...th-commandment

Then again, Reagan would be a RINO in today's GOP, and he was no moderate.

Yes, indeed.

BTW, interesting article on Sarah Palin as a person...

The rise and fall of Sarah Palin: plucked away from Alaska, she lost her soul | US news | The Guardian

Well, let's hear it for Boiler and his Broncos.

Given the ridicule that she has encountered in recent years, it might be hard for some to believe but she was highly regarded as the governor of Alaska and considered as a rising star in the republican camp. After that it would seem that the Peter principle kicked in.