Stop the Presses! Liberal Admits Nixon Began Withdrawing From Vietnam in First Year of Presidency

Photo of Jack Coleman.
  • Bookmark and Share

Since the Iraq-Vietnam analogy they were so fond of citing no longer holds water, liberals have switched to applying the threadbare comparison to the war in Afghanistan.

In the process, an observer will occasionally hear things from left of center he's rarely heard before.

For example, on Ed Schultz's radio show Oct. 9, John Nichols of The Nation magazine had this to say about the dilemma facing Obama in Afghanistan (click here for audio) -- 

NICHOLS: So the real reason he should be drawing down in Afghanistan is because it's - a - bad - place - to - be. 

SCHULTZ: Have we ever escalated the 96th month into a conflict?

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

NICHOLS: No, Ed, I'm not as old as you, you know, but I do remember Vietnam. And I remember, amazingly enough, in 1972 when George McGovern was challenging Richard Nixon as an anti-war candidate, Nixon countered McGovern by massive troop withdrawals.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

NICHOLS: Right? By the time we got into that last year of Vietnam, we had Americans moving out of there, they'd been moving out for three years.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

NICHOLS: This is the exact opposite situation.

I'll give credit where it's due -- Nichols gets closer to the truth with each passing sentence. Initially he implies Nixon withdrew US troops from Vietnam in response to pressure from McGovern during the campaign year of 1972. Nichols then refutes this by stating, accurately, that Nixon's policy of withdrawal had been in place for three years. In other words, it began in 1969, the first year of Nixon's presidency.

At least Nichols is willing to acknowledge this. A more common perspective from liberals on Nixon and Vietnam can be heard in these remarks by Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., in the winter of 2007 when he expressed opposition to the surge in Iraq, comparing the war there to the conflict in Vietnam (Kennedy's remarks start just less than 30 seconds into the clip) --

KENNEDY:  My uncle said a generation ago, 'if we examine the history of the conflict, we find the dismal story repeated time after time. Every time at every crisis, we have denied anything was wrong, sent more troops and issued more confident communiques. Every time we have been assured that this one last step would bring victory, and every time the predictions and promises have failed and been forgotten, and the demand has been made once again for one more step up the ladder. And once again the president tells us that we're going to win -- victory is coming.'

My uncle, Robert Kennedy, made this statement in March of 1968. It took another five years, and 37,544 American lives, before a United States president was withdrawing Americans out of Vietnam and stopping that war. 

You've heard this same assertion from liberals over the years, right? But as I pointed out in a February 2007 op-ed in the Providence Journal, some of us older than Kennedy (born in July 1967) remember Nixon's actions a bit differently --

Far from waiting five years "before" withdrawing American troops from Vietnam, a war he inherited from two Democratic presidents, including another of Kennedy's uncles, Nixon waited all of five months.

In June 1969 Nixon declared the first withdrawal of 25,000 troops to be completed by the end of summer -- followed by an announcement in March 1970 to pull out another 150,000 troops in 12 months -- followed by Nixon vowing in April 10971 to send home another 100,000 troops by year's end.

By the spring of 1972, "Vietnamization," the policy of transferring responsibility for fighting the war to the South Vietnamese government, reduced American troop presence to 70,000, of which 6,000 were combat troops, from the more than half-million troops inherited by Nixon in 1969.

Not surprisingly, the communists exploited the shrinking American presence by launching a major offensive in March 1972. Undeterred, Nixon continued shifting responsibility for the war to South Vietnam. Voters showed their appreciation by overwhelming re-electing Nixon that fall. He won 49 states while his opponent, Sen. George McGovern, could claim -- go figure -- only Massachusetts. 

Count this among the few welcome changes of the Obama presidency -- liberals getting honest about Nixon.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Liberals are the suck.

Liberals are the suck.

Always left out of Democrats memories

Nixon began withdrawing troops almost at once. When North Vietnam refused to negotiate at the Paris Peace accords Nixon resumed the bombing of North Vietnam and a deal was soon reached. Part of that deal was some financial help, or reparations if you will, for both South and North Vietnam to help re-build thier countries. The Democrats in Congress voted down on the Finacial Reparations and then North Vietnam Invaded the South as we were pulling out. Would North Vietnam have invaded anyway as some claim? The sad fact is we will never know. It was the Democrats alone that caused the mess in Vietnam and I was alive and in the Military when this happened.

Born 1951. Served 1973 to 1979. On Fast Attack Subs as a Sonarman. Never been to Vietnam but the memory of the poor people trying to get out as the last helicopters were leaving is burned into my memory. I make no claim to have first hand knowledge but many of my friends were there. Many of my friends were on the Subs that mined Hanoi Harbor. Many of my friends thought that the way we did not hold to our promise would haunt us for decades to come. You know what, they were right.

The sad thing is that

The sad thing is that liberals like Obama never learn from history; they have never quite grasped that it is America's broken promises that cast the longest shadow. They quest after fleeting acclaim that may tickle their ego for a short time, but the quiet result is infamy. History is not kind to the fool.  

-----
Random-jumbled-thoughts.blogspot.com

Kennedy comment is dumber

Kennedy comment is dumber than I thought..Uncle Ted was telling him his own uncle Jack and Lyndon had screwed up.

 

Forty years later he still didn't know difference..must be great to go to Harvard.. 

keep reminding them....

That the Vietnam war was courtesy of two Democrat administrations.

Withdrawal? Withdrawal???

Withdrawal? Withdrawal??? Wait a minute! Didn't "The One" declare Afghanistan to be "the right war?" The one we had to win? I know I heard that somewhere, maybe during the campaign, maybe during the transition?

Not sending in the troops the generals say are needed is an invitation to another Vietnam... and another 9/11.

 

"Four legs good... two legs better!" - George Orwell

Tough on Obama

It must be tough on Obama who had expressed that Afghanistan is the right war, while his base is demanding less people to fight the war. While Obama gives endless speeches on healthcare, economy, he refuses to make a decision of troop levels we have people (real people, our people) fighting and in some cases dying in a war with no plan.  I have all kinds of sympathy for Obama accepting un earned awards, giving speeches to shore up his base and staying out of the White House away from the wife as much as possible. I have never seen a woman as un happy as the First Lady. Everything is a sacrifice for her, oh how does she get along with her entourage that only costs us $1mm a year in salaries. Unlike other first ladies with one full time helper Mrs. O has a staff that is bigger than Madonna’s! Now that is self centered.   

Now mid way into this war we are having new issues with our M4 rifles, which should have been upgraded at the same time the British upgraded. We are unwilling to trash an ok made in the US weapon for a superior Austrian or German weapon. We even are bringing back the M-14 because except in sheer weight of the weapon, it is a superior weapon to the M-16, in both caliber and function, though it does require more training to shoot on full automatic than other weapons.

If you think medical care is expensive now wait until it is free!

Obama to send ONLY 13,000 more troops

The headlines this morning say Obam to send Only 13,000 more troops. Obama does not realise that you cannot compromise this sort of thing. Either prosocute this war or get out. There is no inbetween safe option. The decision he made will lead to more needless combat deaths due to resources being streched too thin. Our Armed FOrces will still probably be able to prevail but at a higher cost in Blood and Treasure.

As an Aside both the M-16 and M-4 were designed for either Jungle warfare or close combet. The M-14 is better designed for the style of combat being fought in the mountains and valleys of Afganistan. M-14 has much better accuracy and longer real effective range. As noted the real drawback is that it is a heavy son of a gun. Needs to be kept clean (lots of dust and grit in Afganistan). The real advantage of the M-14 is that it does not tend to jam due to over heating. Shorter Magazines mean you have to reload more often is a downside but it also helps regulate the temps by forcing a short cool down between Mags.

yeah, just 13,000.

That's like using an empty sandbag to pile on other sandbags against a flood.

-Jon

I was too young for the

I was too young for the draft, and it was all over by the time I was old enough to worry about having to go, but I was old enough to be somewhat aware of what was going on,  and I could never understand, other than for partisan political propaganda reasons, why Nixon got all "the blame" for VietNam when it was started by JFK and escalated by LBJ, and Nixon got us out of it....

This was my first experience with the entrenched conspiracy against the truth the Left has been engaged in for so long.

Hey John.. Gary Trudeau on Vietnam

A few years back I caught a print interview with Doonsbury's Gary Trudear in the .. I think it was the Santa Barbara Press.. no longer there - no wonder. But I did save a bit of the bit, as I fired off an e-mail to the editor. Went like this: 

Question: I’ve grown up with every president since JFK. I remember how froth-at-the-mouth furious Nixon made people; and there was Reagan, who had people pulling out their hair. But compared to George W. Bush, Nixon and Reagan seem like wise men, even sages. But how do you see it? From your perspective, who is the scariest? And how do you keep yourself from getting so sputtering mad that you can’t be funny? Is that tough?

 Answer [Trudeau]: Well, you can’t leave Carter and Clinton off the list of presidents who made people apoplectic. But to me, Bush is the scariest because he is easily the most radical. Nixon still caused the most harm — 30,000 Americans and many more Vietnamese died needlessly on his watch — but don’t count Bush out. There are still plenty of countries to take down. 

A quick rough count finds that approx. 36,000 American servicemen died in Vietnam during the LBJ escalation of the war. 20,863 died between the time Nixon took over and the end of the war. Sorry Mr. Trudeau - you lied.  

LBJ took us from some 10,000-16,000 (varying accounts) troops to 586,000 at the end of his tenure. Then, as you correctly stated,  Nixon started bringing them home, as he promised to do.

(;~/ gary