home

Tuesday Open Thread

It's time for the Tuesday open thread.

Just a word of caution, I've been getting a lot of emails that several commenters are not abiding by the commenting policy here in that they are personally insulting others with different points of view from their own. Others are commenting more than 20 times a day and not adding thoughts of substance. If you have that much to say, please start your own blog.

Also, some are misusing the rating system. Please rate the comment, not the commenter. It's not a popularity contest.

The diaries have been moved to the inside right column. Scribe has one today examining Alberto Gonzales' testimony at the NSA warrantless wiretapping hearings, asking whether he testified falsely when asked whether the Administration was opening mail.

I'll be back to posting later this afternoon.

< Atlanta Courthouse Shootings Trial Begins This Week | Bush Judicial Nominees Ask to Withdraw >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam." (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by scribe on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:03:18 PM EST
    So says Sen. Ted Kennedy in a speech being given at 1:00 PM today at the National Press Club. (h/t Josh Marshall at TPM)

    And, after giving that speech (text reproduced here), Ted will go back to the Senate and introduce the following legislation (4 page .pdf):

    A Bill to prohibit the use of funds for an escalation of United States forces in Iraq above the numbers existing as of January 9, 2007.

    Subsection (a) is about findings of fact, some of which are both pointed and buried (like the punji stakes Bushie, Rummy, Deadeye, Rover and all the rest of those cowardly lions never had to deal with).

    Subsection (b) is, no pun intended, the money quote:

    Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be obligated or expended by the United States government to increase the number of United States forces in Iraq above the number for such forces which existed as of January 9, 2007, without a specific authorization from Congress by law for such an increase.

    Purse string - pulled.

    But, only if you call your Senators and Congresscritters to get them to sign on.

    And, here's the nice point.  The way this bill is written, increasing the number of forces requires a "a specific authorization from Congress by law".  Let's assume Bushie makes a convincing case tomorrow night (he won't, but since so much of everything else these days is fantastic, let's indulge one more) and there's a vote on a "specific authorization from Congress by law".  Maybe Bushie can get enough Rethugs to go along.  But, let them vote for the increase, on a roll call, and let the Dems abstain (or otherwise absent themselves from voting).  That way, when this latest escalation goes to crap - and it will, don't doubt it - the votes for escalation and bloodshed will all be Rethug names.  All Bushie can accuse Dems of then, is not being his cheerleaders.  And no one can hold "not being your adversary's cheerleader" against anyone.

     

    HEH... (none / 0) (#1)
    by desertswine on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:01:31 PM EST
    Disatisfied? Here's a chance to run your own country.

    Mudfoot one more time (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:03:41 PM EST
    The Basement Boys latest is a concept album of the genre-crossing, beat banging, daddy-o sort.  Politics be damned and turn it up, it's almost humpday.  

    Gonzales (none / 0) (#4)
    by Fredo on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:11:55 PM EST
    In 1962, John Kennedy's Secretary of Defense testified before Congress that there had been no agreement to remove missiles from Turkey as part of the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis.  he later acknowledged that he had deliberately testified falsely, and asserted that under certain circumstances he had a "duty to lie" to Congress.  Was he correct?  Should he have been prosecuted?

    It is now known that Sandy Berger knowingly stole five different versions of a memo from a secure location in an effort to keep the documents from the 9/11 commission.  Should he have been imprisoned?  Was his crime greater or lesser than that allegedly committed by Scooter Libby?  Was it greater or lesser than the alleged perjury of Gonzales?  (It appears to me that Gonzales left himself some wiggle room with his prefatory reference to "what is going on here," by which he may claim he was referring to the NSA program instead of answering Feingold's question.  I don't admire him for it, but then I lived through eight years of Clintonisms and survived.)

    assuming facts not in evidence (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Sailor on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 01:09:29 PM EST
    It is now known that Sandy Berger knowingly stole five different versions of a memo from a secure location in an effort to keep the documents from the 9/11 commission.
    Nope, that was a misquoted bit of tripe w/o any facts to back it up.

    If what you say is true McNamara should have been prosecuted.

    Parent

    Look a little harder on Berger..... (none / 0) (#25)
    by avahome on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 02:38:50 PM EST
    There is a story here...but it's not on Berger..he was just a tool that Bushco used.... Remember, who oversaw the documents given to Berger and who cleared them for his review?

    http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/12/the_berger_dossier_pajamas_med.php

    OIG Berger Report: http://pajamasmedia.com/upload/2006/12/Berger-report.pdf

    Parent

    please format your links (none / 0) (#51)
    by Sailor on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 04:47:33 PM EST
    ... and personallly, I'll never follow a link to PJM or any other of the 101 bedwetting keyboarders.

    Parent
    They were copies (none / 0) (#77)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 05:10:23 PM EST
    It is now known that Sandy Berger knowingly stole five different versions of a memo from a secure location in an effort to keep the documents from the 9/11 commission.

    They were copies - not the original memos. So how could he possibly have kept them from the 9/11 commission?

    Parent

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    I was on vaca for a week and since yesterday when I returned there is an odd color problem when I view the comments on a thread.

    The entire left-hand side of the screen is beige and the right hand side is white. The comments themselves remain their greyish color.

    This 4" or so wide beige stripe starts immediately under the blue TL top banner thing and continues straight down to the bottom of the screen and seems to go behind the grey of each of the comments.

    No idea if it's you or if it's me, but it sure makes the site hard to read...

    Do other websites appear normally? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:24:31 PM EST
    Welcome back. Wondered where you went. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:25:28 PM EST
    Same Problem (none / 0) (#9)
    by Patrick on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:31:34 PM EST
    I think it started yesterday.  

    Parent
    I have that too... (none / 0) (#10)
    by desertswine on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:32:16 PM EST
    except it's a kind of a green, not beige.

    Parent
    Do you guys all use Firefox, or IE ? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:49:38 PM EST
    It sound like either the HTML or javascript (or both) is not being interpreted properly by your browsers. You could try clearing your cache's and restarting the machine.

    Parent
    Color problem (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 01:42:24 PM EST
    Edger, nope, just this site. How does one clear caches?

    Bill, thanks.

    dswine, yep kinda greenish, now that you mention it. It might be what my wife calls taupe?

    Parent

    How does one clear caches? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 01:45:35 PM EST
    Depends on what browser. IE... or Firefox... or?

    Parent
    IE (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 01:47:18 PM EST
    In the menu bar at the top (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 01:52:08 PM EST
    Tools --> Internet Options --> Delete Files.. also --> Clear History

    Then close IE. Restart your computer. Try Talkleft again. No guarantees here - it's hard to troubleshoot without being at your computer. There are some other things you can try if this doesn't help.

    Parent

    Edger (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 02:11:54 PM EST
    I did all you said and no difference.


    Parent
    OK - here is one more possibility (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 02:17:40 PM EST
    If this doesn't help you might want to find a geek to look at your computer - usually the teenagers can figure it out fast ;-)

    Anyway -- close IE.

    --> Start button --> RUN --> Type in "CMD" --> "OK", then in the resulting black dosprompt window type "ipconfig /flushdns" (the space has to be there)

    **this assumes you are running Windows 2000 or Windows XP

    Parent

    edger (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 02:27:08 PM EST
    --> Start button --> RUN --> Type in "CMD" --> "OK", then in the resulting black dosprompt window type "ipconfig /flushdns"

    OK, now you're scaring me.

    Does it make sense that (at least) 4 of us have the identical problem, just recently, and on only TL? iow, does it make sense that it's not our computers, but rather TL?

    Parent

    Yes it makes sense that the (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 02:32:32 PM EST
    problem is happening on more than one computer.

    Also I have IE 6.0 and Firefox installed on this computer and I rarely use IE.

    The site displays normally in Firefox. But if I open it in IE I have the same problem you do.

    You could either 1) upgrade IE or 2) install Firefox.

    I would recommend Firefox. It's a better and more secure browser (from viruses, etc), is faster, and is free --> here.

    Parent

    Upgrading IE may not help (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 02:37:05 PM EST
    and probably won't. Firefox will help.

    I think whats happening is that the javascript in the TL webpages is not "detecting" the browsers properly.

    Parent

    possible causes of this issue (none / 0) (#38)
    by hillct on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:46:44 PM EST
    The Javascript on the story and comment pages hasn't changed since a few weeks after the new site launch. If visitors reporting this issue have recently updated their IE browser to a version which handles this Javascript differently than IE6.x that might explain the issue, but based on the descriptions, it sounds like this issue relates to delivery of the page background image. IE has always handled CSS background images strangely, in that the background is not typically loaded until the rest of the page is rendered, but There were a number of configuration changes made last night which wouldn't reasonably impact browser ability to view any element of the site but would enhance page delivery speed. That said, IE is known to react in strange ways to a wide variety of site characteristics. We just need to determine exactly what versions of IE are impacted, so we can reproduce the issue such that we can correct it.

    Parent
    Evaluating the comment display issue (none / 0) (#34)
    by hillct on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:33:36 PM EST
    Edger has asked all the question that I would ask in evaluating this issue. It sounds like the center content background is not loading, but to be certain, please email me some screenshots of what you're seeing (and the exact version of IE you're using). Screenshots can be taken using the procedure found here.
    Thanks for your help in resolving this issue.

    Best Regards,
    Colun Hill

    Parent
    Identifying the exact browser version (none / 0) (#35)
    by hillct on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:38:55 PM EST
    The exact version of IE can be found by selecting Help -> About Internet Explorer

    -- Colin

    Parent
    Should be in your inbox, Colin (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:45:31 PM EST
    I don't see it (none / 0) (#39)
    by hillct on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:51:10 PM EST
    I sent you one as well (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:52:40 PM EST
    Oh yeah, IE 6.0

    Parent
    sent to Support@talkleft.com (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:53:19 PM EST
    from gmail...

    Parent
    Colin (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:52:22 PM EST
    works fine in Firefox 1.5.0.9 and in FF 2

    Parent
    Testing in ie 6.0.2800.1106 (none / 0) (#43)
    by hillct on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 04:02:58 PM EST
    I haven't been able to reproduce the issue in IE6 as above or the newest version of IE7

    Parent
    the screenshot I sent you (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 04:07:46 PM EST
    was from IE 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519

    Parent
    mine was (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 04:11:13 PM EST
    IE 6.0.2800.1106.xpxp2_gdr.040517-1325

    Parent
    The issue is the background image being offset (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by hillct on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 04:22:00 PM EST
    The background image is being offset by some HTML element which extents far to the right. The background itself is being centered based on this increased width. Now it's just a matter of identifying the responsible HTML element (which is expanding the div styled as #page_2col

    Any web developers out there will appreciate my lements that there has yet to be released, a decent DOM inspector for IE similar to firebug for firefox. Miscrosoft has the IE Developer Toolbar but it's not quite ready for primetime. At any rate, I'll dig through this and we'll figure it out.

    --Colin

    Parent
    Looks like the issue is resolved (none / 0) (#55)
    by hillct on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 05:09:25 PM EST
    Please confirm this, but it looks like the issue was resolved by commenting out an iframe tag which is perfectly valid but IE6 is not very standards compliant, whereas firefox is - which is why it works in firefox. In any case, the iframe was uncommented last night in error.

    Please confirm that this change has corrected the issue. In doing so, please clear your IE cache as Edger outlined earlier before testing, in order to make a valid evaluation.

    Best Regards,
    Colin Hill

    Parent
    That's much better! (none / 0) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 05:20:12 PM EST
    Great job Colin.

    Parent
    You da man, Colin! (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 05:20:23 PM EST
    Works fine for me, even without clearing the cache.

    Parent
    HAH! (none / 0) (#70)
    by desertswine on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 10:13:36 AM EST
    FIXED!

    Parent
    Oops (none / 0) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 04:23:48 PM EST
    xpsp2, if it matters...

    Parent
    he has it sarc (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 04:25:49 PM EST
    IE 6.0.2800.1106.xpxp2_gdr.040517-1325

    Parent
    Just so's it's clear... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 04:33:29 PM EST
    IE 6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2_gdr.040517-1325, not .xpxp2

    Parent
    So Sarc, after all that you have (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 04:58:42 PM EST
    three options.

    (1) Put up with the problem till Colin fixes it on his end, OR (2) install Firefox - which will 'fix' the problem in terms of what you see on the screen - the problem will still be there till Colin fixes it - but would not affect you.

    Option (3) probably would work from your POV, but may not: upgrade to IE 7.


    Parent

    Option (4)? (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 05:02:18 PM EST
    Ignore TL and get some work done? ;-)

    Parent
    Well.......... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 05:11:54 PM EST
    .....there is that, I suppose.

    And leave us all hanging over the screens waiting for your next comment?????? Nice guy. Jeeze.

    Parent

    I also have a lot of XP upgrades (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 04:21:55 PM EST
    and hotfixes in this machine - let me know if you want a screenshot


    Parent
    Colin Says It's fixed now (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 05:09:27 PM EST
    please let him or me know if you are still having problems.

    Parent
    Seems (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Patrick on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 05:39:54 PM EST
    fixed to me.  Well Done, and that's a better response than I get from our IT any day of the week.  

    Parent
    Posting comments (none / 0) (#8)
    by wlgriffi on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:31:06 PM EST
    "Just a word of caution, I've been getting a lot of emails that several commenters are not abiding by the commenting policy here in that they are personally insulting others with different points of view from their own. Others are commenting more than 20 times a day and not adding thoughts of substance. If you have that much to say, please start your own blog."

    LOL!! Just why I have discontinued posting on the blogs. My free speech rights are being rejected by e-mailers to you complaining their view is challenged by free-thinkers like me who won't let them get away with illogical analysis and downright lies. They claim me of personal attacks because I question their post and therefore you censor my post for their benefit. So be it. I will will not lose any sleep over the Bush,or your,attempts at restricting my rights. As the saying goes---HAVE A GOOD DAY. BTW,If this post doesn't appear I'll understand.

    Has ANYBODY heard of this guy? This is... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 01:05:47 PM EST
    ...pretty far out there. Wow.

    Parent
    wlgriffi ?? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 01:12:11 PM EST
    Yes, he's made really good comments here, and I haven't seen anyone attack him...


    I wish him well, he seems very distressed. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:09:41 PM EST
    Oh, and on everyone's coloration problem, consider upgrading to a Mac and there will be a whole raft of problems you will never have to face again. [snark!]

    My first mac was actually the old "Lisa" Office System running under a ROM-code rewrite, so we go WAY back (1984?), and I just don't have all these problems IBM-clone users report.

    Parent

    I don't mind the color bars (none / 0) (#19)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 02:09:37 PM EST
    but some of my comments get posted out of chronological order, therefore sometimes they lose their context. I use IE.

    Do you use the "Ignore Ratings" setting? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:10:46 PM EST
    If you use "nested" and show the ratings (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:14:17 PM EST
    you won't lose the context.

    Parent
    The site forget ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Sailor on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 05:05:51 PM EST
    ... my identity (or it expires) from time to time and I have to reset all my comment preferences.

    Parent
    I don't know what could cause that (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 05:18:09 PM EST
    Cookies maybe? I have Firefox set to keep Cookies til they expire. If I recall correcgtlyyou use Safari, right? Are your cookies auto-deleting on a schedule in your options/preferences?

    Parent
    they are set to delete when expire (none / 0) (#73)
    by Sailor on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:08:47 PM EST
    but I use several computers, Windoze and Mac, and they all forget me at the same time and I have to re-login on each individual computer.

    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:13:22 PM EST
    In your User Preferences: Interface here you can change the length of time they persist... maybe that will help.

    Parent
    Ahh, thanks (none / 0) (#78)
    by Sailor on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:48:25 AM EST
    of course 2 months is the max I can set but it's still better than nothing.

    Parent
    Somalia (none / 0) (#26)
    by avahome on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 02:59:48 PM EST
    Come on over and talk about it!

    What are we doing in Somalia?

    ok (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 09:33:01 PM EST
    Killing al-Qaeda.

    Parent
    All 2 members of it (none / 0) (#75)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:37:56 PM EST
    Eh?

    Parent
    Kennedy, Berger (none / 0) (#27)
    by Fredo on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:02:43 PM EST
    Teddy Kennedy should know about Vietnam; it was his brother who started the whole foolish venture--a venture in which Teddy certainly never had to deal with any punji stakes, whereas Your Narrator Fredo certainly did.  I would point out to Teddy that during some stretches of his brother's war we lost more men in two months than we have lost in the entire three years of Iraq, and we didn't overthrow any tyrannies or bring any mass murderers to justice.  And just for good measure I would point out to him that Mary Jo Kopechne is still dead, and it is known to a certainty that he went to great and cowardly lengths to cover up his criminal responsibility for her death.

    As for Berger, the facts I am relying on are the facts for which he has been punished, and which he does not contest.  My only issue is with the severity of his punishment; it can no longer be ssensibly asserted that he wasn't guilty.  He committed a very serious crime, and a nice first step on the road to the appearance of a principled position would be to acknowledge just that.

    The Kennedy's, I'm sure, would refer you to (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:20:03 PM EST
    these works:

    Further information: International Control Commission ,  The United States and the Vietnam War#Timeline: Harry S. Truman and the Vietnam War (1945 -- 1953), and The United States and the Vietnam War#Timeline: Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Vietnam War (1953 -- 1961)

    before accepting your unsupported by fact or history statement that JFK started the Vietnam War.

    And the French had been there for almost a hundred years, but we were so arrogant as to believe that we could do what no one else had been able to do: winm in Vietnam.

    Parent

    JFK was the father (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 09:26:45 PM EST
    Bill... In the end game for the French, they asked Esinhower for air support at Dienbienphu. We declined... Things ground on for 7 years. The French were out and the communists started attacks on the government in the south.

    In 1961, France's Charles de Gaulle told President John F. Kennedy that in Vietnam the U.S. would sink "step by step into a bottomless quagmire," however much it spent "in men and money." President Kennedy had begun sending more advisors to Vietnam to help the Diem regime, increasing their number to 800 in 1961. Kennedy allowed U.S. pilots to fly combat missions while pretending to be instructors, and he supported counter-insurgency to overthrow the communists in the North.

    Link

    His actions committed us to the war, and all that followed were the children of Kennedy's policy.

    Parent

    Our bipartisan stupidity/fear were the father (none / 0) (#67)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 09:24:12 AM EST
    Due to the fact that Ho [Chi Minh] had tried every conceivable way to cooperate with both the French and Americans in gaining Vietnamese independence, and all of those efforts had been fruitless, Ho turned to the Communists for help.

    The US generally took an approach of non-involvement in the issue of Vietnamese and French conflict, and in doing so supported French colonialism. America became less and less inclined to support Ho Chi Min due to his Communist affiliation yet at the same time American analysts could not draw any link between Ho Chi Minh and Moscow, writing that Ho Chi Minh did not seem to be following any directive from Moscow and that the policies of Ho Chi Minh did not correlate with Russian policy.

    Nowhere did the coming of Americans, in the case a mere handful of them, mean so much to a people as it did to the population of northern Indo-China. To Annamites, our coming was the symbol of liberation not from the Japanese occupation but from decades of French colonial rule. For the Annamite government considered the United States the principal champion of the rights of small peoples, guaranteed so promisingly by the United Nations conferences... Our prowess in the war, our vast production abilities, our progressiveness in technical and social fields- all were known by the Annamites, to a surprising degree. In their blueprint for self-government they envisaged American trade bringing them peacetime products.

    American technicians to help then industrialize Vietnam, American consulates in the political, medical and social sciences. Essentially, they feel that the French did not develop the resources of the country for the benefit of the people themselves, and in their own planning have emphasized their intention to throw Vietnam open to American commercial penetration. As a matter of practical preference they would like to see the economy of Vietnam geared to our own if that were possible or desirable to us. Above all they want the good will of the American people and our government. From the top of the Annamite leadership to the bottom of the social scale in Tonkin, every person made a visible effort to please American officers and men. They offered courtesies and simple gestures of friendship at every opportunity.

    The C.B.I. patch on the shoulder of an American was his ticket to a warm welcome and good treatment... Annamites asked for all sorts of advice-how to run a newspaper, how to repair and operate machinery, how to run a street-cleaning department most efficiently-even though they were managing quite well indeed in operating utilities and other physical functions of government. They inquired about our schools, our courts, our elections, about the workings of both houses of the Congress. They seemed to feel that every American contained within himself all the virtues and accomplishments of the nation they wanted most to emulate...
    - Arthur Hale, U.S. Information Agency 1945 (not declassified until 1972)

    Viet-Minh, as its first move after seizure of the government, sought a united front against French imperialism... Frenchmen think that by labeling Viet-Minh "Communist," they have summed up the situation to the disadvantage of the Vietnam government. There is considerable communist influence in Viet-Minh... The national salute is very nearly the raised right arm salute of the communists. Posters, banners, have been adapted from Western leftist art... But at the same time there is ample evidence of an equally strong influence from the United States... Policy statements and declarations by the government are obvious imitations of American techniques of democratic government. In short, the Viet-Minh leadership seems to have used communist methods of appeal to arouse the masses behind a program for an independent democracy...
    - Arthur Hale, U.S. Information Agency 1945 (not declassified until 1972)

    It was clear that the Vietnamese people wanted freedom from foreign intervention.

    What followed between the region of South East Asia and Western powers was an unnecessary escalation of conflict.  Western powers, including the United States, feared Communism and they also felt that non-Western people were not adequate to govern themselves and certainly not to be trusted with important resources and geographic regions. It was felt that it was important to keep economically and militarily strategic locations under Western authority. Had the United States or France given support to Ho Chi Minh and supported the right of Vietnam to self determination at any time up to this point, it is very likely that Vietnam would never have pursued Communism. The only reason that the Vietnamese did was because the Communists were the only ones who were supporting Vietnam's goal of independence.

    In 1967 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave a speech called "Beyond Vietnam", in which he stated:

    "They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence  -- in 1945  -- after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China -- for whom the Vietnamese have no great love -- but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives."

    Parent

    Fredo (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:27:22 PM EST
    What was your experience with punji stakes?

    Parent
    Yowch (none / 0) (#76)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 03:39:11 PM EST
    Not a good one, I'd wager.

    Parent
    Florida Gators (none / 0) (#28)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:02:49 PM EST
    I'm a transplanted Florida boy living in the midwest and I have to say I enjoyed the SEC making a statement last night and shutting up the Big Teners that I am forced to listen to living in the Midwest.

    Congrats to my hometown team and congrats to those of us that said they deserved to be in this game all along.

    Go Gators!

    BUSH PLAN (none / 0) (#36)
    by misterferley on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:40:30 PM EST
    Go Gators is right! Florida born and raised. Now, if you Gator fans want to keep smiling have a look at this funny piece on Bush's plan. Funniest thing I've seen in a while.

    http://presidentmonkey.com/bushiraqplan.aspx

    Enjoy.

    TB

    Thanks guys (none / 0) (#61)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 05:27:39 PM EST
    I had not made any settings changes, so I didn't think of it.

    The background is better now.

    Did you try "nested" (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 05:36:39 PM EST
    for the context issue?

    Parent
    Yes that's my default setting. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 09:31:07 PM EST


    ppj (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 09:30:36 AM EST
    So you're now lamenting our involvement in Vietnam? Sounds remarkably like it.

    Start tap dancing.

    Quagmires.. (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 09:35:21 AM EST
    We do like our 'bottomless quagmires" dont we? Maybe they're just too familiar; enertia and all that.

    Something about redoubling the effort when you've lost sight of the goal occurs to me too.

    And while that 'gator is bitin' you on the @$$... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:18:53 PM EST
    ...it's hard to remember that your original goal was to drain the swamp.

    (Hey, florida guy, didja like the way I worked in a 'gators comment for ya?)

    Parent

    Bush tonight (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:13:24 PM EST
    is going to invent some mistakes to admit to:
    "A vast majority of the American people are not satisfied with the progress in Iraq," [White House counselor Dan] Bartlett said. "President Bush is in their camp. He's not satisfied, he's going to say the strategy was not working, he's going to tell them specifically how we're going to fix the strategy."
    ...
    "The president will say very clearly tonight that there were mistakes with the earlier operations, that it did not have enough Iraqi troops or U.S. troops, that the rules of engagement -- the terms in which our troops would actually conduct these operations -- were flawed," Bartlett said.
    ...
    The president will ignore the recommendation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that he include Syria and Iran in an effort to staunch Iraqi bloodshed, the official said.

    Link

    ...as well as ignoring the facts that the vast majority thinks the whole thing was a mistake from the getgo, and that the vast majority are not satisfied with Bush.

    And to fix his invented mistakes he will announce sending more troops to die for them.