Ambassador Murdered

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

Nixon massacred more American soldier than all other presidents combined

What does this mean? I know the Vietnam war was bad, but the US Civil War had way way more casualties. Are you talking about total casualties, or something else?

According to Wikipedia
Civil War dead: 625K
WWII dead: 405K
WWI dead: 117K
Vietnam dead: 58K

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by glatt

What does this mean? I know the Vietnam war was bad, but the US Civil War had way way more casualties. Are you talking about total casualties, or something else?

According to Wikipedia
Civil War dead: 625K
WWII dead: 405K
WWI dead: 117K
Vietnam dead: 58K

Civil, I, and II were not massacred, only Nixon massacred due to 85% of top management wanting VN war. Others were martyred.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

What does this mean? I know the Vietnam war was bad,

The president sent soldiers to death in a war that had already been lost. Even Le Duc Thou would share their secret military assessments with Kissinger (in Paris). And Kissenger would agree with them. So why were we massacring 33,000 Americans and almost one half million other people in a war that had was already lost. Nixon and Kissenger knew it was lost before massacring all those people uselessly.

He we surrendered and returned to the 1954 Geneva Convention, how many would not have been massacred? But Nixon's legacy would be harmed.

We had to burn the village to save it.

And then there was the massacre at Alice's Restaurant.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by tw

And then there was the massacre at Alice's Restaurant.

MassaCREE, tw. MasaCREE. with four part harmony.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Ibby

MassaCREE, tw. MasaCREE. with four part harmony.

Sorry. My spell checker keeps telling me how to think.

[Griff]

I don't know if this has been posted yet so...

[Lamplighter]

Don't ask the question if you don't already know what the answer will be.

Always hire the outside consultant that agrees with your proposal.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Griff

I don't know if this has been posted yet so...

Tom Rick's blog response:

Maybe I am getting cranky as I go into my third week of book tour. I was on Fox News yesterday morning and said (as I had indicated beforehand that I would) that the whole Benghazi story has been hyped. The anchor pushed back, so I defended my position. My view -- that Fox is openly supportive of the Republican Party, and that the Benghazi incident was hyped in part because it occurred near the end of the presidential campaign -- induced heart flutters in some quarters.

I was surprised that they cut me off instead of doing the manly thing and riding to the sound of the guns. Whattabunchawimps. It reminded me of something that Col. Nathan R. Jessup once said. Or, as a defense reporter commented to me yesterday, "The story is not about Benghazi, it's about how Fox can't tolerate criticism."

Some guy apparently claiming to be a spokesman for Fox misinformed the Hollywood Reporter that I apologized afterwards. Unfortunately the Hollywood Reporter didn't ask for specifics, or even ask me about it -- and I am not hard to find. (Dude, that's an automatic F in Journalism 101.)

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts..._cuts_and_runs

[Griff]

I wish he had said, "Whattabunchachimps." That would be a better word. He must had been livid leaving there. He's just trying to sell his damn book and can be expected to provide some insight into security questions, quid pro quo, but they needed to ask about a nonsense narrative.