Please tag this article so it can be filed under "Why Princess Crabby loves the Armorer".

Well, Maggie - at least *you* liked it!

We know that this was meant in good-natured humor, but

in the interests of giving credit where credit is due, we think it important to mention the importance of the role that Eisenhower, a Republican, played in involving the USA in Vietnam. In an effort to provide fodder for the discussion we expect to ensue, we offer the following:

Selected excerpts from the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War] article on the Vietnam War

"In 1950, the U.S. Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG) arrived to screen French requests for aid, advise on strategy, and train Vietnamese soldiers. By 1954, the U.S. had supplied 300,000 small arms and spent one billion dollars in support of the French military effort. The Eisenhower administration was shouldering 80 percent of the cost of the war. […]"

+ + +

"The cornerstone of U.S. policy was the Domino Theory. This argued that if South Vietnam fell to communist forces, then all of South East Asia would follow. Popularized by the Eisenhower Administration, some argued that if communism spread unchecked, it would follow them home by first reaching Hawaii and follow to the West Coast of the United States. It was better, therefore, to fight communism in Asia, rather than on American soil."

+ + +

"The Republic of Vietnam was created largely because of the Eisenhower administration's desire for an anti-communist state in the region."

+ + +

"In May [1955], Diem undertook a ten-day state visit to the United States. President Eisenhower pledged his continued support. A parade in New York City was held in his honor. Although Diem was openly praised, in private Secretary of State John Foster Dulles conceded that he had been selected because there were no better alternatives."

Had we had ready access to our reference materials (which, alas, we did not think to bring to the office with us today), we might have been able to provide additional points to contribute to the debate.

However, Johnson ran on a 'I will not send one of our boys to spill American blood over to Vietnaaam' ticket back in 1964.

After he won on that platform, as well as his Great Society garbage, he escalated and then micromanaged the war.

Outstanding, John.

Mark - I said it was going to be as accurate as any political attack ad.

I ignored Nixon for Vietnam and Eisenhower for Korea, though if I had chosen to add them, I would have mentioned they technincally ended the wars in question.

I didn't mention the Republican Presidents and Congresses which have supported maintenance of troops in Europe and Asia (since the point of the piece was ignoring the context of McCain's meaning regarding 100 years).

And I didn't even *try* to separate out the dollars in that respect. Any more than the Democrat's ad does.

I ignored the Balkans and all the small stuff like Grenada and Panama.

But I still say that the ad works in the context I intended it - as a parody of the Democrat ad.

Further edits and "truthing" notwithstanding.

That being the whole point.

Okie doke. Fair enough.

Hey, *both* parties rely on blind faith, ignorance of recent and not-so-recent history, and apathy to make it work. I at least said my ad was bad up front, well, more accurately, at the end. Be a hoot if we could make them do that kind of disclaimer...

"We know you're too ignorant of the details and too lazy to check the facts, so we think this ad is good enough for getting government work." or something to that effect.

If their ads suck... it's our fault.

That and the system of education we've constructed.

If constructed is quite the right word.

Those cold hard equations are going to give you a gal stone, John.

Nah, I've got plenty of gall left...!

Cassandra likes this too.

Personally, I think it is a good attack odd.

The best defense is an excellent offense that overruns an enemy's OODA loop cycle.

When they are looking around trying to think up ways to explain why your figures are wrong, you hit them again from another side, John. Keep them guessing and expecting that axe-bat.

I did like it! I said it was brilliant!

Yes, Cassie, you did. And in that phenom which is how the Blogs work... the commentary stayed at your place.

'Cuz they're your core herd, but you know me, fragile male ego and all that.

Heck, I let Kat tee me off upstream in posts today.

You want to use this as a political attack ad? Come on, too easy. Here's the counter-ad: "The Republicans think that the way to fight wars is to just keep on throwing money and bodies at the problem. (flash clip of the Argghhh! death ad) They claim it's the American way of doing business. (images of flag-draped coffins, teary-eyed widows, young kids saluting at grave-site, planes flying overhead) After hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lost lives have been spent, isn't it time for the professionals to take over national security?"

This message brought to you by the Friends of Obama.

Gosh, Jason, I didn't know you had such a grasp of irony.

Jason: "The Republicans think that the way to fight wars is to just keep on throwing money and bodies at the problem.

John:
"Democrats: 73 years. 6.4 Trillion Dollars spent. 615,000 dead."
"Republicans: 17 years. 509 Billion Dollars spent. 4,300 dead"

Jason: "After hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lost lives have been spent, isn't it time for the professionals to take over national security?

Flash up text: "Democrats: 73 years. 6.4 Trillion Dollars spent. 615,000 dead."
"Republicans: 17 years. 509 Billion Dollars spent. 4,300 dead"

Cue laugh track.

Your turn.

[Mind you, I'm not taking this seriously - but political ad makers, and politicians, do] Both of these approaches are bogus.