"We haven’t bled enough. It’s never enough for these sons of bitches."
Go thou through the link, and read the whole thing.
Sadly however the tide of history often turns on the actions of a ruthless and selfish few.
A peaceful end to the war and a triumphant return of American troops would hand Johnson, and by extension Hubert Humphrey and the Democrats, an enormous political victory and most likely the election.
And how different would our world be today if that had been the case?
Instead, Republican presidential candidate and senator from California, Richard Nixon, faced with likely defeat in the coming election, ordered his liaison to the South Vietnam government, Anna Chennault, to sabotage the pending deal.
...
Nixon attempted to sabotage the peace process solely in order to further his own political ambitions.
He didn’t do it because he believed it was bad for America, or bad for the world, or even bad for Vietnam.
He did it because he was a selfish, criminal, partisan son of a bitch.
...
Faced with the embarrassing failure of the peace talks, the democrats lost their lead in the polls and Richard Milhous Nixon narrowly won the White House in November of 1968.
And the war continued on for another seven terrible years.
In that seven years another 20,000 US troops died – bringing the total US dead to 58,220. No one knows how many Vietnamese died.
In that seven years more than 100,000 US troops were wounded. No one knows how many Vietnamese were wounded – and continued to be killed, maimed, and terribly injured for decades afterward by the unexploded ordnance and toxins left buried beneath the former battlefields.
http://www.stonekettle.com/2015/03/the-second-coming-of-richard-millhouse.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Nixon's being a selfish, criminal, partisan son of a bitch. Possibly the only thing good that he ever did was to begin to normalize relations with the PRC.
Of course, he had been the strongest opposition leader to any Dem ever trying to do that.
It was also under Nixon that the "Chicago Boys" conducted their "experiments" in South America as very well described by Naomi Klein and many others.
I didn't know that it was possible to hate any Republican more than I hated Nixon. But Reagan proved me wrong. Since Reagan, my hatred quotient for Republicans has increased at least a hundredfold, I'm afraid. 
whereas before he had absolutely fought it. http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/modern/jb_modern_nixchina_1.html
And yes, I totally agree with the cynical reasons that you state. 
On what planet? Do you know anything about Richard Nixon? 
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kissinger, Bush... the same cast of warmongering motherfuckers.
It would have been a tough fight at the Chicago convention in '68. But a lot of people were supporting Kennedy. Who knows what would have happened, given the chaos occurring at that convention. Bobby would've beaten Nixon and ended that fucking war if he got the nomination. I am happy to say.
But when you call unions "mainstream elements of the Dem establishment" (as you did in your first post), yet do not see a candidate who strongly supported unions in 1968 as progressive, I have to scratch my head in wonder. 
Yes, it was the war that was the issue that was out front and most divisive. But anti-war proponents as well as "mainstream" Dems such as union members were able to make common cause around RFK for the most part - until his tragic assassination. No, the principal factor in Humphrey's loss in 1968 was not that he wasn't progressive nor was it because he was not charismatic. Revulsion at chaotic events during the Dem Convention in Chicago had caused many in the "mainstream" to see A-W protesters as enemies of the State and Southern antipathy towards Johnson's espousal of civil rights had caused "Southern Democrats" (for the most past RINOs, as we saw later when the same coalitions also voted for Reagan in 1980) to defect in large numbers to third party-candidate, George Wallace.
Humphrey actually received 42.7% of the popular vote, while Nixon received 43.42% so the election was very close numerically. But it was the wholesale defection of the South to Wallace that was the deciding factor in Nixon's plurality win. http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1968
A lot of what happened to generate well-being for many in the US and in Europe post-WWII was because most world leaders espoused Keynesian economic theories in varying degrees and implemented them in their national and international policies.
Those theories worked well for the most part, and with tweaking would have worked even more to make this world a better place. Unfortunately, the rise of Milton Friedman's "Chicago School" and the insidious RW anti-Keynesian theories that were espoused, even enshrined, by the likes of Greenspan, etc., as well as the rise of the theory that a corporation's purpose is to enrich its shareholders above all else - no matter what consequences to other stakeholders - have changed the US from the shining economic and political model that it used to be in the mid-20th century into a parable to be avoided. Things were not perfect then, especially for women and minorities, but Johnson's signature of civil rights legislation was a huge step forward. Humphrey would have continued those policies and added to them.
Unfortunately, the war was disastrous to Humphrey's future as a candidate. Even with that horrible albatross around his neck, he had gained momentum in the latter stages of the campaign. Had Election Day occurred even a week later, it is possible that the outcome might have been different. But life is full of "what ifs" ... unfortunately.
The election of Richard Nixon in 1968 was at a key moment for US history and tragically, we made the wrong decision, as was the case again in 1980 with Reagan. Among other long lasting consequences, it enabled the rise, spread, mainstreaming and adoption of Friedman's theories - and also many disastrous foreign policy decisions - that later not only enabled the rise of Reagan - but of shadowy amoral figures such as the Kochs, et al. All have resulted in the disastrous economic and foreign policies this nation pursues today.
But this is why even today, we must ALL keep our eyes on the long term, because the two parties are NOT alike. 
No GOPer Presidential candidate is acceptable. NONE. EVER.
It's an interesting discussion on the policy and political level. But for some of us here at DU, this really hits home. We were there in-country, and it was our blood that was spilling, and the blood of our friends, along with the blood of our enemies and the civilians caught in the middle.
I doubt I'm the only one here for whom this brings up a lot of shit, and all of our personal war experience and consequences and trauma. Especially with that subject line.
God, what a fucking tragedy! 
