alt.politics.gw-bush

Mitchell Holman wrote:
> stuff_stuff@ wrote in
> news:mocuq3hh9tvbb39fboq6effou93jtp3qtn@:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:28:36 -0600, David Hartung
>> wrote:
>>
>>> stuff_stuff@ wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 23:40:02 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David Hartung wrote in
>>>>> news:PYOdnRt3noDJFTPanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@:
>>>>>
>>>>>> stuff_stuff@ wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While you're at it, what do YOU think did all that killing and
>>>>>>> dying accomplished?
>>>>>> In the end, nothing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am an eternal optimist, I believe that had the war been prosecuted
>>>>>> properly, and had the military been given the task of winning, the
>>>>>> war would have been over well before 1968, and today, Vietnam would
>>>>>> not be a communist country.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact remains that Johnson had no intention of ever winning the
>>>>>> war, and by the time Nixon was elected, the American people would
>>>>>> have refused to support he sort of all out action a victory would
>>>>>> have required.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It was Johnson's fault that Nixon campaigned on a
>>>>> plank to end the war and withdraw troop from Vietnam?
>>> What does this have to do with the simple fact that Johnson never
>>> intended to allow our troops to win the war?
>>
>> What a stupid and ignorant thing to say. It's totally unworthy of a
>> response.
>>
>
>
> Most notestreams involving Hartung end this way.
> He says something so toweringly stupid that there is
> no locical response.

Given Johnson's actions, I think it safe to say that he had no intention
of achieving true victory. Johnson seemed to believe that our presence
would eventually be enough to cause North Vietnam to back down. Johnson
was more interested in "sending messages" rather than actually winning.