Hannity exaggerated Reagan's record on jobs, federal revenue

Jeter,

I have also seen posters rise to your and Tommy's defense. You usually don't engage in flame throwing wars, which is why your response to Tex surprised me, especially since Tex's post seemed more factual than emotional. Like I said, I wasn't going to respond, but then I thought your take on Kennedy seemed off, so I did. When I asked if someone pissed in your cornflakes, I was saying that you seemed a little more grumpy than usual; I wouldn't have put it this way if you were one of the other constant flame throwers.

I think if Hillary wins the nomination, Kennedy will do what every other Democratic leader has done who has endorsed Obamma (and there have been a lot): simply say he supports Hillary, it is time to heal the small differences and work to the good of the country. I mean, aren't many Democratic politicians endorsing Hillary or Obamma? 

I think your point is the supposed vehemence with which Kennedy states his position. Obamma is the *only* one who can unify the country. But I think that is pretty innocuous. After all, when you proposed to your wife, did you say "You are the only woman for me?" Or did you say "You are an awesome woman, but looking at the situation objectively, there are also other women out there if I hadn't happened to meet you and some of these women might have had better qualities in some areas, and some might have had worse?" 

Funnyman,

It seems that what you are forgetting here is that Wikipedia is not the ruling authority on the history of U.S, involvement in Vietnam. With all due respect, in your zeal to show that the failures of the 1956 elections were the fault of Diem and the United States you are only misinforming yourself. I don't know if you have objectively studied the history of our involvement in Vietnam. It seems that you are intent on blindly accepting the historical findings which support your preconceived idea that everything bad that happenned in Vietnam was our fault. In fact, history DOES IN FACT show North Vietnam engaged in actions which were instrumental in the failure of the 1956 elections. For example, try reading the Pentagon Papers chapter 5. It's all there for you to see. First of all, President Diem on a hwole supported free elections, he is quoted as saying "The clauses provided for in the 1956 elections are extremely vague. But, they are clear in stipulating that the elections are to be free. Everything will now depend on how the elections are defined". Now Diem's position was that he wanted to see "if the conditions for freedom existed at the time of the elections in the North" His point was that what good would an elections be if vote counting was preceeded in the North by  "ruthless propoganda and the terrorism of a police state." I will admit that despite this, Diem was opposed to the Geneva accords from 1954 as was the United States. But as indicated in the pentagon Papers: "As the deadline for consultations approached (20 July 1955), Diem was increasingly explicit that he did not consider free elections possible in North Vietnam, and had no intention of consulting with the DRV concerning them. The U.S. did not--as is often alleged--connive with Diem to ignore the elections. U.S. State Department records indicate that Diem's refusal to be bound by the Geneva Accords and his opposition to pre-election consultations were at his own initiative. However, the U.S., which had expected elections to be held, and up until May 1955 had fully supported them, shifted its position in the face of Diem's opposition, and of the evidence then accumulated about the oppressive nature of the regime in North Vietnam. "In essence," a State Department historical study found, "our position would be that the whole subject of consultations and elections in Viet-Nam should be left up to the Vietnamese themselves and not dictated by external arrangements which one of the parties never accepted and still rejects." Secretary of State Dulles explained publicly that:Neither the United States Government nor the Government of Viet-Nam is, of course, a party to the Geneva armistice agreements. We did not sign them, and the Government of Viet-Nam did not sign them and, indeed, protested against them. On the other hand, the United States believes, broadly speaking, in the unification of countries which have a historic unity, where the people are akin. We also believe that, if there are conditions of really free elections, there is no serious risk that the Communists would win.....

Now, faced with a regime of oppression as practiced by the Viet Minh, we remain skeptical concerning the possibility of fulifihing the conditions of free elections in the North 

It was widely known at the time, that the North, while calling for free elections did in now way follow the suggestions of the Soviet Union and Great Britain (co-chairs of the 1954 geneva accords) for setting up the appropriate machinery for free elections. It was also widely known at the time that the government of North Vietnam freely admitted its shortcomings in facillitating these elections. I guess this would be the time to address your continued use of Eisenhower's indication of Ho winning the elections as well as showing in more detail how the North was at every turn implementing policies which led to the failure of the 1956 elections. Again in the Pentagon Papers this is addressed:"President Eisenhower is widely quoted to the effect that in 1954 as many as 80% of the Vietnamese people would have voted for Ho Chi Minh, as the popular hero of their liberation, in an election against Bao Dai. In October 1955, Diem ran against Bao Dai in a referendum and won--by a dubiously overwhelming vote, but he plainly won nevertheless. It is almost certain that by 1956 the proportion which might have voted for Ho--in a free election against Diem--would have been much smaller than 80%. Diem's success in the South had been far greater than anyone could have foreseen, while the North Vietnamese regime had been suffering from food scarcity, and low public morale stemming from inept imitation of Chinese Communism-including a harsh agrarian program that reportedly led to the killing of over 50,000 small-scale "landlords." The North Vietnamese themselves furnished damning descriptions of conditions within the DRV in 1955 and 1956. Vo Nguyen Giap, in a public statement to his communist party colleagues, admitted in autumn, 1956, that:

We made too many deviations and executed too many honest people. We attacked on too large a front and, seeing enemies everywhere, resorted to terror, which became far too widespread. . . . Whilst carrying out our land reform program we failed to respect the principles of freedom of faith and worship in many areas . . . in regions inhabited by minority tribes we have attacked tribal chiefs too strongly, thus injuring, instead of respecting, local customs and manners. . . . When reorganizing the party, we paid too much importance to the notion of social class instead of adhering firmly to political qualifications alone. Instead of recognizing education to be the first essential, we resorted exclusively to organizational measures such as disciplinary punishments, expulsion from the party, executions, dissolution of party branches and calls. Worse still, torture came to be regarded as a normal practice during party reorganization

Here is the truth; The elections in 1956 were prohibited due to the policies and non compliance of the north as well as the overall policy of "the Dominoe Theory" of the United States and it's allies. As for Kennedy, you seem to put forth the idea that he is as guilty as the one who pulled the trigger. For that you would have to prove that Kennedy knew Diem would be killed following the coup and thus approved the coup knowing that outcome. None of your links do that. Kennedy was naive but not guilty of the murder of Diem.

Bashing: 

"this MMFA piece is stupid. Who really freaken cares?"