Someone correct me if I am wrong but it appears..

[TheBigotBasher]

.. from 1945 every major US military intervention that was lost, was lost by a Rethug, every successful intervention was won by a Democratic President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#1945.E2.80.931949

Just a reading of facts, which seem to have a liberal bias.

[lame54]

1. Johnson got us into Vietnam...

Ford got us out

[WinkyDink]

3. Isn't this wrong on both counts? I'm thinking Eisenhower/JFK over-lap, and Nixon.

Saigon fell to the north under Ford.

[ingac70]

6. Yep. Eisenhower sent the "military advisors". n/t

[OmahaBlueDog]

14. Actually, it started with Truman

But the advisory role ramped up after Dien Bien Phu, under Ike.

[lame54]

8. Kennedy wanted to pull the "advisers" out...

Johnson took over and and had other ideas

Ford recognized it as an un-winnable cluster-fuck and pulled us out

please don't make me continue to defend the repugs

[WinkyDink]

The Paris Peace Accords were signed under Nixon, not Ford.

[lame54]

17. I see that now...

i addressed that in a lower post

[ingac70]

5. 1958 was the official beginning of American involvement . n/t

[tularetom]

7. We were chased out while Ford was in the WH

Kind of a stretch to credit him with "getting" us out under the circumstances.

[lame54]

12. There was no time we were actually "winning"...

we were just dumping bodies and money into this mess

after a decade of this Ford decided it was time to end it

[former9thward]

27. The war ended in 1973 under Nixon. Ford had nothing to do with it.

[Arkansas Granny]

10. We were well into Vietnam before Johnson took office.

http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/timeline/index.html

And the last combat soldiers left Vietnam before Nixon resigned.

[lame54]

16. you are right...

double checking

we left before the war was over

I always related the war ending in '75 with us returning

our involvement ended before the actual war did

But I still credit Johnson with the escalation of our involvement

and a repug got us home (I don't give a shit if we declared victory or defeat - as long as our guys came home)

The OP is still wrong

[eleny]

11. Perhaps Truman gets the nod as well as Ike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_United_States_in_the_Vietnam_War#Dwight_D._Eisenhower_.281953.E2.80.931961.29

[whistler162]

15. Eisenhower got us into Vietnam

by taking over for the French when they exited, Johnson got us deeper into Vietnam.

[msongs]

19. actually, Eisenhower got us "into" Vietnam nt

[lame54]

20. I know that...

but Johnson went Full Metal Jacket

after further review

I see that the first 2 American soldiers died under Eisenhower

Then another under Kennedy

and he responded with a 5000 troop build-up

Johnson took it from there

Vietnam timeline:

http://www.landscaper.net/timelin.htm

[jwirr]

22. We were in Vietnam long before Johnson. He escalated but he did

not start it.

[lame54]

23. the escalation is what I was referring to

[villager]

2. Both parties, I think, can "share credit" for Vietnam.

And increasingly, they can also be equally "boastful" about our situation in the Mideast.

[WinkyDink]

9. 1969--1974 was all Nixon.

"Nixon would object that he didn’t start the war in Vietnam, and he’d be right about that. But he ran for president in 1968 promising that he had a secret plan to end the war. The Paris Peace Talks had already started when he took office. And yet the war continued for four more years, during which half a million Vietnamese died—along with 21,000 Americans."

http://www.hnn.us/roundup/entries/32897.html

[lame54]

18. sounds familiar

[Drunken Irishman]

4. The Gulf War was pretty successful...

[Zax2me]

13. Uh, no.

There is nothing successful about Afghanistan and this President increased our role there.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

24. Come on. Afghanistan is completely Bush's baby and you know that. -nt

[EstimatedProphet]

25. He knows it, he just doesn't care

[former9thward]

26. Not since Jan. 20, 2009 and you know that.

[OHdem10]

21. No matter how you slice and dice Democrats have had more

"successes" in Defense, War, FP.

The Democratic Party appears to have as usual permitted
the Republicans to rewrite history and spread the narrative
which was intened to destroy Liberalism. The Republicans
are considered strong on Defense, War etc simply because
they say they are.

To this day the fact remains. He who controls the narrative
wins, period. The Democrats have permitted the Republicans
to control the narrative.

[indepat]

28. Pubs are strong on national defense and tough on crime, drugs, and terra. Dems are weak on national

defense and soft on crime, drugs and terra. How do we all know this? The pubs and MSM keep telling us so relentlessly that most accept this pile of male bovine excrement as fact. :patriot: