The historical analysis is anything but settled so therefore your conclusion is an opinion, not a fact.

B

The overwhelming majority of historians believe it was a mistake, I believe.

Tom W

As you wish, bwannah sahib.

I wish I had the graph, I've seen it -- public support during WW2 stayed approx. between 80% and 70% the entire war.

With Vietnam, it started around 80% and did a gradual slide down to around 30%.

This, a mere 20 to 25 years after the end of WW2.

The hawks represented here have made it clear that they hold the bulk of the American people in contempt.

Good luck with that ya'all.

Tom,
Too soon. Historians who were alive at the time of Viet Nam are too close to really put it in perspective.
However, I guess the majority of historians ( as academics) tend to be liberals, Therefore their perspective on VN would correspond with your own----making them "right".

One of my favorite US Civil War reads is a very famous "letter" by a Union Lt who was right at the point of receiving Pickett's charge, his name was Artemis Haskell. In the preface to his tome he muses that what he writes is not "the" history of the battle of Gettysburg, but simply his history of the battle. A real history of such an event can never be written. Then he goes on to say that someday, someone who was not present at the battle will write what will be called,"The History", and we, if alive, must be content with that.

Without specific proof to support that assertion, it is no more than a glib generalization.

Exactly right and back atcha.

Maybe.....but I doubt it. ....and I question the idea that most historians are liberals....whatever that means.....perhaps more than half, but I bet not that much more than half.

Tom W

Last time I thought about it "more than half" = "most"
I am glad you agree.

How many political conservatives teach in universities? How many could ever get tenure?
Hence I say "most"

Well, you know, I thought I disagreed but after thinking about it settled for putting a little finer point on it.:)

I think we agree technically but not in substance on this one.

Tom W

Putting aside for a moment any discussion of the questionable courage involved in issuing charges of cowardice from 2,000 miles away, consider for a moment that some courage is required to ponder whether or not one's most dearly held beliefs might be founded on faulty foundations.

http://weblog.sinteur.com/wp-content.../luckovich.gif:D

That is for sure!

Typical Republican diversion tactic.

Gay marriage, gun control, abortion, flag burning, immigration...

Pick one. All are things that many people care passionately and all are things that Republicans can do little about except talk at election time.

And they will continue the practice as long as it works.

Tom W

One of the really surprising things to come out of the Democratic primary race is the way the right-wingers on TV have all fallen in love with Hillary. They can't say enough nice things about her. Even Sean Hannity had some good things to say about her the other day. They might be the most unprincipled bunch I have ever seen.

Perhaps they are considering the alternative and find it deficient.

I think it is more likely that they simply want to keep the battle going between the 2 Democrat Party front-runners. For a while Clinton was the Bride of Frankenstein now she's Joan 'dArc. If she gets in or near the lead again they'll remember Bill, law firm records, Hilary healthcare, etc and start hammering on her again.