[Chi-townChief]

Steinberg is evidently quite lacking in his knowledge of fairly recent history. One of the reasons Tricky Dick got the boot is that he was on the verge of "peace with honor" and the rats and commies just could have that.

[Chi-townChief]

OOPS - “... the rats and commies just couldN’T have that.”

[Northern Yankee]

Richard Nixon squeaked to election in 1968 promising "peace with honor" and vowing to end the war in Vietnam. But he didn't.

Ummm... no, he did bring an end to the Vietnam war in regards to U.S. involvement. (peace with honor only comes to the victorious.)

You're right, Chi-town. This writer is a colossal idiot.

[kabar]

Richard Nixon squeaked to election in 1968 promising "peace with honor" and vowing to end the war in Vietnam. But he didn't. He expanded it, and four years later he was re-elected by the greatest landslide in American history. Keep that in mind.

Nixon did get us out of Vietnam as he promised. The last US combat troops left in March 1973. The Paris Peace Accords were supposed to provide for "peace with honor," but the NVA violated the agreement and Congress stopped the US from responding. Nixon won in a landslide in 1972 because he did get us out of Vietnam.

[ChessExpert]

Richard Nixon squeaked to election in 1968 promising "peace with honor" and vowing to end the war in Vietnam. But he didn't. He expanded it, and four years later he was re-elected by the greatest landslide in American history.

I think we obtained peace with honor - then we through it away. There was a gap of about a year or two between our departure and the fall of Vietnam. We promised South Vietnam aid. We promised that we would provide military support in the case of a conventional military assault by North Vietnam. The Democratic Congress reneged publicly on both promises early. While we sent nothing, the Soviet Union provided about $9B in aid. The North Vietnamese came in with more tanks than Patton had in World War Two. We could abandon Korea today. But that wouldn’t mean that we did not win the Korean war. For Vietnam, the span of time between victory and abandonment was short enough that the press was able to present it as one event - defeat.

[johnny7]

Steinberg is evidently quite lacking in his knowledge of fairly recent history.

The author is a 'born-yesterday' historian... with his sole source, the NYTimes and few, spittled rants from Chris Matthews.

[ontap]

It always comes back to Gays, do these people ever have a thought that doesn’t concern Gays?

[Brad from Tennessee]

Like most “journalists” today Steinberg seems to get his history lessons from pop documentaries and television “news” personalities. An accurate account how congressional Democrats squandered victory in Vietnam is here:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101faessay84604/melvin-r-laird/iraq-learning-the-lessons-of-vietnam.html

[MNJohnnie]

Big let down coming for the Anti American Left coming up.

Does not matter if you elect Hillary in 2008. The second it no longer becomes an issue to beat President Bush over the head with, these same Democrats are magically going to discover why we need to stay in Iraq. It is shaping up to be the big Clinton betrayal for 2008. The same way Bill Clinton did not intend to pursue a “Middle Class Tax cut” in 1992, Hillary knows she will not be able to cut and run from Iraq.

One can argue that we should not be so dependent on ME oil, what cannot be argued is we are depended on it. Like it or not, the free flow of oil from that part of the world is a vital US National Security Interest. Our economic well-being, and thus our national security, depends on it.

Iraq sits on anywhere (depending on whose figures you use) from the second largest, to the fifth largest, oil reserves in the world. No US Administration is going to be able to walk away from Iraq. That is just reality.