Lyndon Johnson wasn't a war monger at heart either. And he did a lot of good, too.

[Stinky The Clown]

I lived through the Johnson years.

I have flashes of deja vu.

He inherited a war, too.

Yes, there's sand and desolation and frigid mountains instead of steaming jungles.

But the choppers are similar.

The armor our guys wear is better and thus, the mortal wounds fewer. And no longer do we blame the war on the warriors. For that I am most grateful.

But the operative word now, as it was then, is the same.

Why?

I can come up with no rational answer. Maybe I could have in 2001 and 2002 and maybe even in 2003. But that was more than half a decade ago. That was then.

This is now.

Why?

[tekisui]

1. Depending on who answers, that answer is elusive, ambiguous,

weak or out-of-touch with reality.

There is no good why.

[saigon68]

52. Its about the Benjamins ask Dow Chem, Boeing

Good Union jobs too.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Lyndon Johnson was an asshole

Obama is not.

[Captain Hilts]

4. He was a VERY smart asshole who knew how to get things done. A master. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. He didn't know how to end a war

[Captain Hilts]

6. No, he didn't, but it now looks as though the military wasn't honest with him. nt

[bobbolink]

9. bwahahahaha!

[AllentownJake]

10. Honestly

You actually believe that Barack Obama is a better man than LBJ?

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. Yes I do

Lyndon Johnson held cabinet meetings while taking a shit with the bathroom door open.

[AllentownJake]

14. Well fuck he had bad manners

When Barack Obama puts his ass on the line for something equivalent of the civil rights acts and Great Society under LBJ call me.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. Give him some time

I am disappointed in Obama too. But my point is that Barack Obama is a good man. I believe he really wants to do what is best for the American people because it's the right thing to do. But Lyndon Johnson was an egotistical asshole who did what he did because it made Lyndon Johnson look good.

[AllentownJake]

16. I'll take an egotistical asshole

taking shits during cabinet meetings that gets shit done for the people over a good man who can't even get his own party to pass a decent health care bill any fucking time.

[DerekG]

17. That's how bad things have gotten

You know your country's fucked when you start longing for LBJ.

"Yeah, he sent my grandfather to Vietnam, but at least he gave my grandma a free college education. What the hell's Obama done?"

[AllentownJake]

18. He actually sent my father to Vietnam

and my father had scars from that war. I'd rather have a New Deal democrat war monger than the DLC war supporting democrat we have now.

[DerekG]

23. The donkeys used to be so much more schizophrenic

Guys like Truman and Johnson would spend half their days devising ways to incinerate yellow children, and the other half finding out ways to feed yours. Now they just stick with the incinerating.

Perhaps in twenty years, they'll opt for "just feeding."

[demosincebirth]

21. Thats a big 10-4

[HughMoran]

19. Honestly

Do you think Obama is a good person?

Who do you think he's a better man than...

1) George W. Bush

2) Joe Lieberman

3) Hillary Clinton (;))

or

4) William Shatner?

[AllentownJake]

20. William Shatner would be entertaining

I could sit through that state of the union address.

You know I'm frustrated with the lack of action. What the hell happened to the Fierce Urgency of NOW

:-)

[HughMoran]

24. I think the urgency of NOW has succumbed to 'stability' and 'slow but steady progress'

I'm more of a 'slow but steady progress' person myself. There's plenty of time to be pissed off later if the 'progress' never happens.

[AllentownJake]

25. I believe in rapid evolution

Times of steadiness and than times of instability that lead to radical change followed by steadiness.

[HughMoran]

26. I do strongly desire a time of instability and radical change

...like we had in the 60's, but I've realized that this can't be 'wished' into reality, it seems to just 'happen' in unpredictable ways. There just aren't enough people who are willing to sacrifice it all at this time, so I'm just not ready to bang my head against the wall (pointlessly.) I have been very firm in straightening out people who are in the Faux 'news' 'reality', but there are just too many of these lazy people. We're a nation of lazy ass holes for the most part - radical change won't happen until these people wake from their daze.

[AllentownJake]

28. I was talking to an older friend of my Mom tonight

Once every 2 weeks a bar I'm friends with the owner I go to does a cabaret.

Both of us agreed that when the educated can't find employment meeting their education it always tends to result in the same thing. A revolution.

The revolution will not be lead by the American Idol class.

[HughMoran]

31. I agree

Your theory is supposedly valid since many of the more capable are distracted by their careers in good times, but when they can't occupy their highly active minds, they will often be those who lead others into revolt. I can't remember where I read this, but I was flattered that they mentioned engineers due to their ability to use their ingenuity to determine how/where to most effectively apply pressure. It is pretty bad out there for tech-pros. What career/industry are you in?

[AllentownJake]

32. I'm an auditor

Look at the revolutions of history...none of them have ever been led by the lower classes. Whether you are talking about the American Revolution, French Revolution, Russian Revolution or what happens in South America (Cuba or Venezuala).

[HughMoran]

35. It's true

I do wonder what would have happened if this deep recession had hit during the middle of Bush's second term. Things would surely have hit the fan if Obama wasn't elected. I sometimes wonder if the more radical among us are displeased with Obamas soothing and stable style?

[AllentownJake]

36. It isn't his style

It's his actions....there is about to be a populist movement in this country and the last thing you want is for that populist movement to be coming from the right.

[HughMoran]

37. You think the right can get their act together?

What's their movement going to promote? Enslaving all minorities? Cutting taxes on the rich (many of them already got a tax-cut from Obama)? Promoting people like Palin, Bachmann etc? All I see from the right is an anti-populist movement - they're insane and most thinking people know it. If the lower classes don't start revolutions, what effect would these nutty people have?

[AllentownJake]

38. Research Hitler

He played to a populist as he talked to the industrialist behind the scenes.

[HughMoran]

39. That possibility always exists

I can see the threat when I see the idiocy of a person like Beck on a propaganda station like Faux, but I'm not sure that people in Nazi Germany had alternate sources of information that point out the clear insanity of these 'talkers'. Also, they don't currently have any real charismatic leaders - just screaming nuts and tired old men.

[AllentownJake]

40. I worry about Huckabee

When Fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in the flag and cross type of deal.

[HughMoran]

41. He's more powerful when the spotlight isn't on him

He seems to fold under pressure :shrug: I guess we'll see. I'm more worried about getting affordable healthcare. I can see people overrunning insurance corporations if they 'win' on the public option debate. I know I'm spitting nails angry. :mad:

[mitchum]

27. Johnson was a very complex asshole...and the most progressive president of my lifetime

Carter? Bwahaha!
Clinton? Bwahaha!
Obama? Time will tell.

[Hangingon]

29. I have to agree - LBJ was complex and very effective ....

with domestic legislation. He inherited a war and he received bad advice. LBJ tried everything to end the war including giving up his chance for a second term. His language and crude antics have been a bit over blown - some are fiction.

[Hangingon]

30. dupe

[Captain Hilts]

3. Yes, the war killed him, too. nt

[sandnsea]

7. Pakistan nukes?

I was reading through Senator Kerry's remarks to the CFR. While he talks about terrorists and the Taliban in Afghanistan, he seems to repeatedly bring the focus back to Pakistan. Pakistan & India both with nukes, Pakistan a fragile government threatened by Taliban takeover, not a good situation.

I *think* that's the concern. That and the fact that we did everything wrong for the last 8 years and maybe the people of Afghanistan deserve at least a couple of years of us investing in the country and working with local authorities in a positive manner.

Definitely a tough call.

[Vinnie From Indy]

11. I agree !

You make a good point!

[Vinnie From Indy]

8. Great question that all Americans should ask themselves

Money and political power are the reasons we are still fighting. There are a thousand branches to the war-making tree, but the trunk is always money and political power.

One additional, and more sinister, difference between now and then is the fact our current wars have been "privatized" to such an extent that we have not had to implement a draft. This is dangerous for our republic on many levels. It provides additional motivation to keep the dogs of war unleashed and, most importantly, no draft removes to a large degree the direct emotional impact, cost and fear of war on the general population.

[sandnsea]

22. I think it always boils down to power. Period.

I think there are people in DC who vote for military contracts for their districts, money is definitely in play there. But ultimately, the reason the politician votes for it is usually POWER. The reason we were in Iraq was to control the oil to keep our power. The only reason to stay engaged in Afghanistan is to keep Russia out of that entire region, and retain our power. I think people who believe the government goes to war just to funnel money to crony contractors miss the point. It's always the power, it's never the money. If they thought funneling money to the poor would give them power, they'd do it.

[Vinnie From Indy]

54. good points!

cheers!

[AllentownJake]

12. This war must end

I have no problem protesting a democratic President on the issue of war.

[UTUSN]

33. K&R #3 n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. Given that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed on August 7, 1964, what war did LBJ

inherit?

[David Zephyr]

58. Yep.

.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. LBJ chose war to prove his anti-Communism. Obama is doing the same.

In this case to prove he's tough on terror.

Neither Johnson or Obama are warmongers. Just ambitious politicians.

[Hippo_Tron]

47. Ultimately if Americans are tired of war...

They need to stop buying into the Republican meme that hawkishness = security. Otherwise you're just going to get Democrats who feel the need to act hawkish.

[tblue]

43. Military/Industrial/Gov't Complex, and need for MAJOR finance reform,

and Obama has to own this now. He is effing president.

I consider LBJ a great president for what he did for Civil Rights. He put all politics aside to do the right thing, and he took the heat for that and for Vietnam. I would give anything to see Obama stick his neck out like that for anything. But there's nothing in Obama's history to indicate he would ever take that kind of risk, I am so sorry to say.

[DerekG]

44. LBJ was suitably tragic; Obama is not

Johnson, the true heir to Franklin Roosevelt, was determined to end poverty and apartheid, but was destroyed in his attempt to placate his masters within the national security apparatus. His rise and fall was spectacular and absolutely heart-breaking--one of the cautionary tales of world history.

Who is Obama's spiritual heir? Clinton? Does he even have a vision? Will he be anything but a historical footnote?

[saigon68]

53. Obama is following down a sad path.

Just wait for the inevitable SURGE

[burning rain]

45. A lot of Democrats in that era were scared of being accused of "losing"....

an Asian country to communism, as Truman had been lambasted for "losing" China. Rather similarly, Obama's spoiling to demonstrate that he's willing to fight a war in the Islamic world, too, now that "Islamofascism" is the big enemy, and not communism. I'm sure it will turn out at least as well as Vietnam.

[harkadog]

46. LBJ did not "inherit a war"

When he took over it was a small military action of a few hundred advisers. Johnson turned into a war by expanding it to 500,000.

[Bucky]

50. Kennedy's "small military action" involved 16,000 US troops, not "hundreds"

Of course it's not the same as the half a million combat forces LBJ eventually had in theater, but Kennedy did build up the US presence in the war significantly. Eisenhower left less than a thousand men in Vietnam when his term ran out.

[harkadog]

56. Thanks for the correction of numbers

But in November, 1963 no one in the U.S. was talking about the "Vietnam War". Few knew we had any presence in Vietnam and it wasn't a subject of ordinary conversation. Johnson changed all that rather quickly.

[Hissyspit]

48. Have you not heard the recordings? Johnson fomented the Gulf of Tonkin incident to expand the war.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3810724

http://www.whitehousetapes.net/content/classroom/index.php?n=Main.TheTonkinGulf

[Bucky]

49. No, Nixon inherited a war. Johnson inherited over-extended military advisors.

I don't think Kennedy was on the verge of withdrawing from Vietnam, as many conspiracy heads do, but there's just no way he was going to escalate our role in Vietnam into a full fledged shooting war the way LBJ did. I'm a fan of Johnson's, but the quagmire was entirely his doing. Kennedy was looking for a policy change. Johnson was looking for a victory that just couldn't happen.

In this set, Obama's a hell of a lot closer to Kennedy.

[Stinky The Clown]

51. No. That's not correct.

Eisenhower - few hundred

Kennedy - 16 Thousand

Johnson - Huge escalation of an *existing* war.


Look, the parallels between then and now are hardly perfect. There is no repeat of history. But there are similarities, to be sure. They're undeniable. Those who fail to learn from the the past are doomed to repeat it in their own way.

[raccoon]

55. It's impossible, IMO, for people who weren't at least adolescents during LBJ's regime

to understand how unpopular he was at that time.

Yes, he did sign some progressive legislation.

But if you were subject to the draft, or else your brothers/boyfriends/husbands/sons were, you wouldn't have had much use for LBJ at the time, either.

[Seeking Serenity]

57. I always thought Johnson was treated absymally by the Kennedys

Seeing the recent documentary on the 24 hours after JFK's assassination confirmed it.

LBJ was the last of the New Deal warriors.