Wednesday, May 30, 2012
The Proof of the Pudding is in the Bleeding
Lyndon Baines Johnson lied us into Vietnam; a war that caused 10 times more casualties than the Iraq War, a war that didn't have a U.N. resolution OR a Congressional approval. According to the very same criteria that has been put forth by those who have argued most vociferously that George W. Bush is a war criminal, LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON WAS A WAR CRIMINAL. Now, let us see if these individuals agree.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
I will go with both of them being war criminals...although Johnson has more redeeming qualities than bush.
Whoops forgot to check the comment box.
Actually, it probably would be more fun to have a beer with bush, though.
I'd give Johnson an A for civil rights and an F for Vietnam. And I truly appreciate your moral consistency, Jerry. Here's to hoping that your esteemed colleague follows suit.
One Mississippi.....two Mississippi.....
Three Mississippi, four...
As mush as I despise(d) LBJ i will not grant that he is a war criminal any more than I will grant GWB is a war criminal.
On the domestic front even though I disagree with his "Great Society" BS he gets higher grades than GWB.
I don't think that either of them are war criminals, either, Les. Just another attempt at some devil's advocacy.
Wikipedia: In October, 2005 the NYT reported that Robert J. Hanyok, a historian for the NSA, had concluded that the NSA deliberately distorted the intelligence reports that it had passed on to policy-makers regarding the 8/4/1964 [Gulf of Tonkin] incident. He concluded that the motive was not political but was probably to cover up honest intelligence errors. ...Mr. Hanyok concluded that the NSA had initially misinterpreted North Vietnamese intercepts, believing there was an attack on August 4. Midlevel NSA officials almost immediately discovered the error, he concluded, but covered it up by altering documents, so as to make it appear the second attack had happened. [end Wikipedia excerpt]
Conclusion: LBJ didn't lie, he believed the intelligence reports provided by the NSA.
bush, on the other hand, made his decision to attack Iraq despite the UN weapon inspectors telling him there was no WMD.
Conclusion: bush lied.
Also, we desperately need some new Great Society legislation. We should end the failed wars (including the war on drugs) and resume the war on poverty. Under Johnson poverty dropped "from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century". [quote from "The Great Society" Wikipedia page]
"Also, we desperately need some new Great Society legislation. We should end the failed wars (including the war on drugs)"
On the above I would agree.
It took ya' a while but you finally scrounged something up. The fact is that Johnson rashly (when you go to war you make sure that that it's necessary and strategically vital and you DON'T get our troops involved in another country's civil war) and stupidly got us involved in a conflict that cause the death of nearly 60,000 young American troops AND there was NO U.N. authorization OR Congressional declaration. LBJ was a war criminal according to your criteria.
"We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." A LIE! And those U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin were engaged in provocative actions such as collecting electronic information from North Vietnam and bombarding their radar stations. This whole Gulf if Tonkin episode was nothing but a fucking pretense for Johnson to do what he always plainly wanted to do; escalate the war in Southeast Asia. What a piece of shit.......And he constantly lied about the status of the war, too - trying to convince the American people that we were making progress when we clearly WERE NOT.
Will: It took ya' a while but you finally scrounged something up.
I posted my reply as soon as I finished reading the post and the replies.
Will: LBJ was a war criminal according to your criteria.
You're wrong about what my criteria is.
Nixon was a war criminal.
What a morally impaired individual. LBJ fucking lies us into a protracted war (nearly 60,000 dead Americans) and never gets a either a Congressional or U.N. authorization and you flat-out refuse to call him a war criminal.......Your criteria wasn't lying and failing to get U.N. authorization? And why did LBJ order the bombardment of those radar stations prior to the Gulf of Tonkin? Spin out of this one, dude.
"We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." A LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Also, we desperately need some new Great Society legislation"
Well I agree minus the above.
Will: A LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a morally impaired individual. George bush lies us into a war with Iraq, and Will INSISTS there is NO WAY we can know if bush actually lied. LBJ changed his mind due to new information (even though it turned out to be wrong) and Will is POSITIVE he lied. Spin out of this one, dude.
And LBJ had Congressional approval.
He had approval to strike back, not to mount a 600,000 troop land invasion and get us bogged down in the middle of an idiotic civil war. Don't you know anything, wd? The Vietnam War was an frigging undeclared war Duh! "New information". LOL The dude has one source and from that he determines not just to strike back with a missile or two but to send more than a half a million young American men into the middle of that fuckubg grinder. 60,000 Americans dead, wd. And you don't seem to frigging care. What a partisan stooge.
And it was fucking Johnson who started the hostilities in the first place, sending those ships to the Gulf of Tonkin in an effort to collect electronic information and ultimately to bombard those radar stations. NONE OF IT WITH INTERNATIONAL APPROVAL. If LBJ had an R in front of his name, you'd be going over the top with your heated condemnations and foaming at the mouth. But because he has a D in front of it, you're shamelessly and moronically spinning for the fellow. How in the hell do you even live with yourself? Jerry, at least showed some moral consistency here.
WD claimed: "What a morally impaired individual. George bush lies us into a war with Iraq".
He didn't. He told the truth about the situation, and the war was already on before Bush even was elected. Your sentence has no truth in any part of it.
WD said to Will: "You're wrong about what my criteria is."
Well, that is probably true. WD's criteria on war criminals, while they do tend to directly contradict that of the actual authorities (UN, ICC, etc) seem to shift about wildly.
And it was fucking bush who started the hostilities in the first place, sending the weapons inspectors packing and ultimately bombarding Iraq in a campaign called "shock and awe". NONE OF IT WITH INTERNATIONAL APPROVAL. If GWb had an D behind his name, you'd be going over the top with your heated condemnations and foaming at the mouth. But because he has a R behind it, you're shamelessly and moronically spinning for the fellow. How in the hell do you even live with yourself?
WD said: "And it was fucking bush who started the hostilities in the first place"
With lies like this, you are so misinformed that it is a wonder that you can even spell Bush's name. The fact is that Iraq engaged in very large numbers of hostilities in the time leading up to the major retaliation in the spring of 2003. The attacks in the no-fly zones.
...ultimately bombarding Iraq in a campaign called "shock and awe".
Which was only after a large number of unprovoked military aggressions from Iraq.
"NONE OF IT WITH INTERNATIONAL APPROVAL."
Actually, numerous nations supported this. This makes it "international"
"If GWb had an D behind his name, you'd be going over the top with your heated condemnations and foaming at the mouth."
Logged in without the grey matter again, have you? I actually supported Clinton's actions against Serbia. He has a (D) after his name. I only pointed this out earlier in what looked like a critical manner to point out your hypocrisy.
"How in the hell do you even live with yourself?
Because I'm consistent and know the facts.
Don't want to talk about LBJ anymore, heh, wd?............And you are once again lying about my record. I was against the decision to go to war with Iraq and if you look back to my posts from 2007 and 2008 you will see that I wrote scores of posts in which I was highly critical of President Bush. My only departure here is with this whole idiotic war criminal hyperbole AND the fact that you have such utterly shifting standards of decency. LBJ started a war in which nearly 60,000 Americans died and during which he lied frigging repeatedly (just look at his speeches and compare them to his journal) and all that you can do is contortedly spin. How completely and utterly shameless and hypocritical you are.
And there WERE voices in the Johnson administration that tried to warn the SOB. He just (a la Bush) chose not to listen. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60E11F6355E157493CBA9178ED85F428785F9
Will: Don't want to talk about LBJ anymore, heh, wd?
Because I point out your hypocrisy you conclude I don't want to talk about LBJ? A diversion attempt.
Will: And you are once again lying about my record. I was against the decision to go to war with Iraq and if you look back to my posts from 2007 and 2008...
Now you've flipped to defending him. I am not "once again lying". I've never lied about your record of minimizing bush's crimes.
Will: ...you have such utterly shifting standards of decency. LBJ started a war in which nearly 60,000 Americans died...
I was doing the "devil's advocacy" thing to expose your shameless hypocrisy on this issue. I actually never said whether or not I think LBJ is a war criminal. I wasn't alive (or an infant) at the time and I haven't read a lot about it. He might be.
Also, regarding dmarks' inane comments... he responds as if my comments were directed at him, even though I was clearly responding to Will. He must have logged in without the grey matter again (which isn't at all atypical for him).
Mu shameless hypocrisy? I don't think that either one is a war criminal, Clyde. I was just pointing out that LBJ did some things that were as bad or worse than Bush and that you were flaming spinning for him. Devil's advocacy, my ass. You were caught in an untenable position and now you're acting all "well, maybe he is a war criminal yada yada yada..."
Will: I don't think that either one is a war criminal, Clyde.
I was referring to your belief that LBJ lied and GWb did not.
Will: Devil's advocacy, my ass. You were caught in an untenable position and now you're acting all "well, maybe he is a war criminal yada yada yada..."
I KNEW that was going to be your response. I wasn't "caught" in diddly squat. Pointing to the facts which say LBJ was misinformed about the Gulf of Tonkin incident isn't "spinning". Obviously you didn't know about this historical fact, and now you're spinning to cover up your ignorance.
Go back and check my comments. I NEVER said I thought LBJ wasn't a war criminal.
FYI, it was Nixon who committed treason, sabotaged the peace talks, and kept the war going. And there are audio tapes that prove this to be true.
I knew the spin before you ever discovered it, wd, that whole line about McNamara lying to Johnson and that Johnson didn't know the real truth yada yada (I fucking lived through Vietnam, Charlie). And I was actually referring to the fact that LBJ said that he would never send American troops to Vietnam and then HE DID. And he repeatedly lied to the American people about the progress of the war, saying that it was all going hunky dory when his own fucking tapes and journals indicated otherwise. No, you never said that LBJ wasn't a war criminal (the definition of frigging is is) but you sure as hell came to his defense mighty quick.......And what did fucking LBJ think that the North Vietnamese were going to do when he sent those ships to spy on and later bombard them? He was fucking egging them on and then he looked for the first fucking pretense to start hostilities. And that's the fucking issue, wd. LBJ didn't give a rat's ass if the information that he got was good, bad, or indifferent. He was bound and determined to start a land campaign and screw it if anybody cared.......Nixon? Always trying to deflect back on the Republicans. Nixon was a fucking shit! I, unlike you, don't defend the indefensible.
That's a pretty biased and crazy source that you just gave me, btw. The lady that wrote it apparently gives credence to that thoroughly debunked Gary Sick theory about Reagan that you had been peddling before I totally eviscerated it.
LBJ obviously lied. He said that he would never send troops to Vietnam and they he did so based soley upon a single source of the Vietnamese lobbing a couple of fucking torpedoes. A 600,000 land invasion in response to a couple of torpedoes!!!!......Bush? He majorly fucked up. But I cannot say with certainty that he lied. Give me some fucking evidence, not that he was wrong, mind you, but that he lied (LBJ had tapes in which he admitted that the war was going badly - proving that he was lying to the public).
Will: I knew the spin before you ever discovered it...
"knew about the spin before I ever discovered it" my ass.
Will: I was actually referring to the fact that LBJ said that he would never send American troops to Vietnam and then HE DID.
He changed his mind. That isn't "lying".
Will: And he repeatedly lied to the American people about the progress of the war...
As if that's something new?
Will: ...you sure as hell came to his defense mighty quick...
No I didn't. You said so yourself. You said, "It took ya a while but you finally scrounged something up". So, which is it... it took me awhile, or I came to his defense "mighty quick"??
In any case, you DARED me to defend him. You said, "Here's to hoping that your esteemed colleague follows suit". I took that as a dare. I had no choice but to defend LBJ. Also, I find your continual use of the F word preceding his name offensive.
Will: He was bound and determined to start a land campaign and screw it if anybody cared.
If the "he" you were referring to was GWb I'd agree completely. What LBJ was "bound and determined" to do... I'm not so sure about.
Will: Always trying to deflect back on the Republicans.
No, I brought up Nixon because you blamed LBJ for the total amount of our dead soldiers when it was Nixon who sabotaged the peace talks and prolonged the war.
Will: That's a pretty biased and crazy source that you just gave me, btw.
What the source says about Nixon is true. They give links to the audio tapes! Audio tapes aren't "biased".
Will: ...thoroughly debunked Gary Sick theory about Reagan that you had been peddling before I totally eviscerated it.
I recall no evisceration or debunking. Reagan's campaign delayed the release of the Iranian hostages. I think there is some pretty solid evidence to support that theory.
Breaking a promise is as bad as a lie especially when YOU provoke the action. He sent those ships fully knowing that the North Vietnamese would respond to us bombarding THEIR radar stations. And I was WELL AWARE of the fact that McNamara may have been the one who spoon-fed LBJ this bullshit (in fact, in a thread from 3-4 years ago, I had admonished LBJ for not having fired Mr. McNamara precisely because of this). So fuck you.......And it wasn't a "challenge" (quick meaning that the very first comment was to his defense). It was an opportunity for you to be a fair-minded and decent person for once in your miserable life. The fact of the matter is that there is NO DEFENSE for what FUCKING LBJ did in terms of getting us involved in a nasty civil war 9,000 away to the tune of 60,000 dead Americans (12 Xs the number of U.S. deaths from Iraq). But because he has a D in front of his name you shamelessly and moronically spin for him. How fucked UP you are.
http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/search?q=Gary+Sick To refresh your memory on Mr. Sick.......As for Mr. Nixon, I do not doubt for a minute that he was a shit. I would, however, prefer to hear the tapes in context and in their entirety before I conclude that he, TOO, was a war criminal (who are you going to accuse of being a war criminal next, McKinley? - actually he did kind of start the Spanish and Philippine wars kind of sleazily so knock yourself out).
You're VERY consistent in stating your belief that it's impossible for a US president to commit war crimes (no matter what he does), and that our economy should be run for the benefit of the wealthy... I'll give you that. But that isn't consistency I'd be proud of.
And you're consistent in making up lies about people you've never met if they DARE disagree with you.
Yes, my top tax rate of 40%, the getting rid of the special consideration for capital gains, and reducing the threshold on mortgage interest deductions are SOOOOOOOOO for the benefit of the wealthy. I mean, dude, you just can make this shit up.......And, again, wd, what about FDR? He routinely targeted major population centers in Japan THROUGHOUT WW2. Are you willing to call him a war criminal, too. And you STILL haven't made a determination on LBJ. Is this an inconsistency that YOU'RE proud of?
WW2 was a declared war...thus no war criminality. However, targetting purely civilian targets, while maybe effective (it was with nukes) is morally deprived.
FDR and Churchill did it and did it repeatedly (and, no, I'm not talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki that Truman did, I'm talking about the routine carpet-bombing of places like Tokyo and Hamburg that had ZERO military value). And Dresden one could argue WAS a war crime.
Post a Comment