Goldwater was Right

[Tim Gratz]

Today I viewed in full "The Fog of War", a very interesting film that I recommend to those who have not seen it.

The film had a clip of Barry Goldwater's acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican GOP convention, at which he said:

Make no bones of this. Don't try to sweep this under the rug. We are at war in Vietnam. And yet the President, who is Commander-in-Chief of our forces, refuses to say - refuses to say, mind you, whether or not the objective over there is victory. And his Secretary of Defense continues to mislead and misinform the American people, and enough of it has gone by.

The film makes clear that Goldwater was right.

In the film, Robert Strange Mcnamara admits his own deception to the American people about the war. He admits he knew we were losing the war, but when he came back from Vietnam he gave glowing reports to the assembled media.

As it related to one of LBJ's first increase in troops sent to vietnam, McNamara is recorded on tape telling Johnson that he will make the announcement as late in the day as possible so many morning newspapers would catch it.

The film is definitely worth viewing because it has McNamara's comments on the CMC; his analysis of Gen. Curtis LeMay (he worked with LeMay in World War Two); and other matters that might indeed be relevant to the assassination. McNamara states that JFK intended to pull the troops out of Vietnam, for instance (but remember Mcnamara as much as admitted he is a xxxx). (In the latter matter, I encountered portions of a JFK interview with NBC News in late 1963 in which he clearly and unequivocally endorsed the "domino theory".)

Edited December 13, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Carroll]

Today I viewed in full "The Fog of War", a very interesting film that I recommend to those who have not seen it.... As it related to one of LBJ's first increase in troops sent to vietnam, McNamara is recorded on tape telling Johnson that he will make the announcement as late in the day as possible so many morning newspapers would catch it.... McNamara states that JFK intended to pull the troops out of Vietnam, for instance (but remember Mcnamara as much as admitted he is a xxxx).

Anyone who questions whether or not Kennedy was serious about withdrawing troops and if McNamara supported JFK's position should view The Fog Of War and listen to the portion of tape cited by Tim Gratz from February, 1964. It's classic overbearing LBJ. One can hear LBJ reaming McNamara a new one for his and President Kennedy's talk about withdrawal. LBJ makes it clear in no uncertain terms that it was a mistake on the part of both JFK and McNamara; everytime McNamara tries to get a word in edgewise, LBJ lays into him some more. That bit of tape is extremely telling, and has to be heard to be believed.

As for McNamara's admission of deceptiveness, that was later under LBJ, when thousands were dying, both McNamara's son and wife had serious ulcers, and RFK had people calling McNamara telling him he had to resign for the sake of conscience.

...I encountered portions of a JFK interview with NBC News in late 1963 in which he clearly and unequivocally endorsed the "domino theory".

Kennedy's position at the end of his life, most particularly articulated in the Walter Cronkite (CBS) interview of, I believe, September 2, 1963, was that "in the final analysis" the war would be won or lost by the Vietnamese. However, he did say at that time that it would be a serious mistake to completely withdraw before a viable government could be established there. His position was not unlike that of current thoughtful persons who believe the Iraq War was a mistake but that to withdraw too precipitously would leave a dangerous power vacuum.

As for the Domino Theory, at that time every poor third world country was a potential proxy war between superpowers and economic systems. The Domino Theory simply added the factor of geographical contiguousness to the power equation between capitalism and communism. However, Kennedy did clearly recognize, as with the portion of his speech about the Monroe Doctrine planned for Dallas, that certain concepts needed to be discarded when obsolescence occurred. The nature of Geography itself had changed.

T.C.

[Tim Gratz]

As usual, an excellent post by Tim.

"The Fog of War" is chilling because at the end McNamara clearly states we fought the war only because we misunderstood the objectives of the North Vietnamese.

Although it is clearly written from McNamara's perspective, I do not believe it makes McNamara look good. In my opinion, McNamara was largely responsible for the morass that Vietnam became.

[John Simkin]

Today I viewed in full "The Fog of War", a very interesting film that I recommend to those who have not seen it.

The film had a clip of Barry Goldwater's acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican GOP convention, at which he said:

Make no bones of this. Don't try to sweep this under the rug. We are at war in Vietnam. And yet the President, who is Commander-in-Chief of our forces, refuses to say - refuses to say, mind you, whether or not the objective over there is victory. And his Secretary of Defense continues to mislead and misinform the American people, and enough of it has gone by.

The film makes clear that Goldwater was right.

In the film, Robert Strange Mcnamara admits his own deception to the American people about the war. He admits he knew we were losing the war, but when he came back from Vietnam he gave glowing reports to the assembled media.

As it related to one of LBJ's first increase in troops sent to vietnam, McNamara is recorded on tape telling Johnson that he will make the announcement as late in the day as possible so many morning newspapers would catch it.

The film is definitely worth viewing because it has McNamara's comments on the CMC; his analysis of Gen. Curtis LeMay (he worked with LeMay in World War Two); and other matters that might indeed be relevant to the assassination. McNamara states that JFK intended to pull the troops out of Vietnam, for instance (but remember Mcnamara as much as admitted he is a xxxx). (In the latter matter, I encountered portions of a JFK interview with NBC News in late 1963 in which he clearly and unequivocally endorsed the "domino theory".)

Another one of your absurd postings. It should be remembered that Goldwater wanted to use nuclear weapons on North Vietnam. He also wanted to send US troops into Hanoi. Luckily the Americans never elected such an idiot as president. If he had been elected in 1964 we would probably have had a full-scale nuclear war with China. That is why Bush worries me so much, he thinks too much like Goldwater. However, I suppose that is why you like him so much.

The Fog of War is indeed a great film. I was impressed by Robert McNamara’s willingness to accept that his decisions resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians: Fire Bombing of Japan, Agent Orange, the escalation of the Vietnam War, etc. One of the most moving parts of the film was when he described the suicide of Norman R. Morrison outside his office in protest against the Vietnam War. The point that Morrison was trying to make was that it is one thing to give the orders that results in the deaths of thousands of innocent people, but a very different experience when someone sets fire to themselves by your window.

McNamara’s description of Curtis LeMay’s behavior during the Pacific War was very revealing. At least LeMay was honest enough to admit that if America lost that war he would have been prosecuted and convicted as a war criminal.

McNamara was also with LeMay during the Cuban Missile Crisis. His description of LeMay’s views was indeed chilling. It helps to explain why JFK was determined to marginalize LeMay in 1963. JFK would have been particularly concerned about LeMay getting involved in Vietnam.

The thing that stands out about McNamara was that he is an intellectual. That is why he got on so well with JFK. McNamara had the ability to reflect on his decisions. He got it completely right when he said the problem with politicians is that “we see what we want to believe”. As he pointed out, they completely failed to “put ourselves into the skins of the enemy” in Vietnam. The only reason that the Cuban Missile Crisis did not end in a nuclear war was because JFK did have empathy with the enemy. Empathy is the most important trait that a political leader needs to have. It is something that George Bush does not have. That is why he is in so much trouble in Iraq.

The Fog of War is one of the most important films ever made. However, despite the obvious skills of Errol Morris, those lacking empathy, will not get it.

[Lynne Foster]

McNamara could say much more, but he is probably not able to, because the real truth is a matter of national security secrecy. I mean, if the testimony of a nut like David Ferrie can be sealed, McNamara has to be very careful about what he can say and what he cannot, to keep the truth about the Kennedy assassination buried.

Don't take Tim seriously, he's a partisan Republican activist, as far as I can see.

John, I think that Tim is just being deliberately provocative, but you are correct about comparing Bush and Goldwater, and concerns about China. The Cold War should be over, we shouldn't have concerns about China, and it is McNamara who said that if American foeign policy does not change course, we will be at war with China in less than 10 tyears.

I think this Mcnamara has proved to be smarter than Rummie, the world should heed his warning and make the prospect of war with China unthinkable, as it should be.

I hope Rummie demonstrates McNamara's capacity to learn before he really messes things up the way McNamara did.

Edited December 13, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Tim Gratz]

John, your post makes me wonder how closely you listened to "The Fog of War." In it McNamara argues the point that per the North Vietnamese they were only fighting for their independence and they had been fighting the Chinese for centuries. If this is correct certainly we would not have had a nuclear war with China had we attacked Hanoi.

That the US was never willing to go "on to Hanoi" is one of the primary reasons we lost the war.

Do you think the allies would have ever won WWII had we simply tried to defend England and had never invaded France and then Germany? Of course not.

It made no sense for any Americans to die in a war we were doomed to lose because we were not willing to fight to win. Yet that is the war that LBJ and McNamara engineered.

In "The Fog of War" McNamara ultimately concludes that we fought the entire war and lost so many Americans (and killed so many Vietnamese) because we never understood the North Vietnamese and where they were coming from. He claims the entire war was based on a misunderstanding. If that is true, then McNamara has indicted himself as the idiot. And his idiocy caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans.

Barry Goldwater was wrong--very wrong--about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But he was right (no pun intended) about how to defeat Communism. If your objective is not to defeat your enemy, the best you can hope for is a stalemate. When Reagan became president and changed the American strategy in the Cold War from containment and detente to victory, Communism fell in eight years and there was never a nuclear war. Goldwater once wrote a book about Cold War strategy, the title of which said it all: "Why Not Victory?"

(But Reagan, of course, from your world view, was also an idiot. (LOL))

[Pat Speer]

John, your post makes me wonder how closely you listened to "The Fog of War." In it McNamara argues the point that per the North Vietnamese they were only fighting for their independence and they had been fighting the Chinese for centuries. If this is correct certainly we would not have had a nuclear war with China had we attacked Hanoi.

That the US was never willing to go "on to Hanoi" is one of the primary reasons we lost the war.

Do you think the allies would have ever won WWII had we simply tried to defend England and had never invaded France and then Germany? Of course not.

It made no sense for any Americans to die in a war we were doomed to lose because we were not willing to fight to win. Yet that is the war that LBJ and McNamara engineered.

In "The Fog of War" McNamara ultimately concludes that we fought the entire war and lost so many Americans (and killed so many Vietnamese) because we never understood the North Vietnamese and where they were coming from. He claims the entire war was based on a misunderstanding. If that is true, then McNamara has indicted himself as the idiot. And his idiocy caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans.

Barry Goldwater was wrong--very wrong--about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But he was right (no pun intended) about how to defeat Communism. If your objective is not to defeat your enemy, the best you can hope for is a stalemate. When Reagan became president and changed the American strategy in the Cold War from containment and detente to victory, Communism fell in eight years and there was never a nuclear war. Goldwater once wrote a book about Cold War strategy, the title of which said it all: "Why Not Victory?"

(But Reagan, of course, from your world view, was also an idiot. (LOL))

Tim, you're so wrong on so many levels. PLEASE go back and read some of the books I've begged you to read before you EVER post on Vietnam again.

The Pentagon Papers includes documents revealing that the Pentagon knew that the more we killed the more joined up, the more we bombed the greater the resistance became. McNamara thought there was a point at which this would reverse itself, and kept upping the ante. He misunderstood the NV resolve to win. Around the point where we had a HALF A MILLION in country, he realized it was a black hole. Johnson, however, felt he was stuck politically (You can't admit a mistake in this country and expect to be re-elected...not with Nixon and Goldwater and BOBBY taking every cheap shot against you...). Since you're into movies, watch the The Path to War--THE definitive picture of the Johnson White House and Vietnam, as far as I'm concerned.

Your theory that Goldwater could have won the war by nuking the NV, and that China and Russia would have stood quietly by is INSANE. Just because Ho Chi Minh was no fan of Brezhnev and Mao's doesn't mean he didn't have agreements with them. If they didn't move to his defense they may very well have moved on Korea or Berlin while over a HALF MILLION of our soldiers were tied down in Nam. As stated, we had a HALF MIL in country, and could barely hold on to the South. It may have taken another MILLION before we could have taken the North without the use of nukes, and then they would have had to stay there to keep the peace, basically making us the moral equivalent of the Nazis in Africa, and just as vulnerable. The use of nukes, even without a Russian or Chinese response would almost certainly have been disastrous for our foreign policy, particularly in Asia, where our decision to nuke would have been viewed as racist. No way would Nixon have been able to go to China if we'd nuked Nam. It may very well have driven Indonesia towards communism.

And your comparing a land war in Vietnam to missile defense strategy under Reagan is like comparing apples and oranges. If Reagan had applied his commitment to win policy to a land war in Russia, he would have followed Napoleon and Hitler into infamy as fool number three. Having a commitment to win and a lot of expensive toys isn't enough to win, as is being proved in Iraq--it takes the good will of the people.

[Tim Gratz]

Pat wrote:

The Pentagon Papers includes documents revealing that the Pentagon knew that the more we killed the more joined up, the more we bombed the greater the resistance became.

Well, Pat, you must then at least admit my point that "whiz kid" McNamara was an idiot if the Pentagon knew this and he did not.

And it is my recollection that it was Nixon's intensified bombing that finally drove the N. Vietnamese to the bargaining table. I also recall that when Nixon decided more bombing was necessary, he had a trip to the Soviet Union planned and he decided to go ahead with the bombing even at the risk of blowing his trip to Russia. Well, he intensified the bombing and the Russkies did nothing, and the trip was on.

If Nixon had done the bombing early on thousands of American lives would have been saved.

But it was foolhardy for McNamara and LBJ to fight a war they did not intend to win. Fight a war with an intention of only achieving a "draw" and you will surely lose.

Would you agree with that much?

[Pat Speer]

Pat wrote:

The Pentagon Papers includes documents revealing that the Pentagon knew that the more we killed the more joined up, the more we bombed the greater the resistance became.

Well, Pat, you must then at least admit my point that "whiz kid" McNamara was an idiot if the Pentagon knew this and he did not.

And it is my recollection that it was Nixon's intensified bombing that finally drove the N. Vietnamese to the bargaining table. I also recall that when Nixon decided more bombing was necessary, he had a trip to the Soviet Union planned and he decided to go ahead with the bombing even at the risk of blowing his trip to Russia. Well, he intensified the bombing and the Russkies did nothing, and the trip was on.

If Nixon had done the bombing early on thousands of American lives would have been saved.

But it was foolhardy for McNamara and LBJ to fight a war they did not intend to win. Fight a war with an intention of only achieving a "draw" and you will surely lose.

Would you agree with that much?

In these cynical times, I'm not so sure the U.S. ever had the goal of winning the war in Vietnam. Our goal may very well have been to slow down the growth of communism...at any cost, even if it meant fighting an unwinnable war. The eyes of history may still consider the U.S. the "winner".

As far as Whiz Kid McNamara, he totally screwed up, and admits it. He crunched some numbers early on that said there would be a point at which the North Vietnamese forces would begin shrinking, but then found out he was wrong and changed his mind. The CIA also had these numbers and honestly reported them in their reports. Johnson had access to these reports. He just chose to ignore them, and ordered the Pentagon to misrepresent the numbers in their reports. This was at the heart of the lawsuit brought against CBS by William Westmoreland. Both sides were right: CBS was right in that Westmoreland's figures grossly exaggerated enemies killed and enemy strength; Westmoreland was right in that he wasn't deceivng LBJ. In McNamara's In Retrospect, a remarkable book and the basis of The Fog of War, he admits that LBJ knew Westmoreland's numbers were cooked because LBJ himself had ordered them to be cooked in order to deceive congress. (At least that's how I remember it.) In any regard, he claims that LBJ was not deceived. Westoreland, by the way, never could accept that the North Vietnamese forces were growing in direct proportion to his own and like a good hawk insisted we were just around the corner from total victory. He'd insisted the same thing when there were 100,000 men, 200,000 men etc... all the way up to the half a mil it eventually became. His refusal to accept the failure of his command and his continued insistence that we were only 200,000 soldiers away etc. is part of the reason we're having this conversation now. He came home a total failure and insisted it was the fault of dem bureaucrats in Washington who tied his hands, etc. This myth has gained popularity over the years with those who have a hard time believing the great U.S. could ever make a mistake. Guess what? We did. And McNamara's book is the proof.

And your bit about Nixon and the bombing is largely untrue. It was Nixon who drove the North Vietnamese away from the tables in 68 when he got word to Thieu through Madame Chennault to cut off negotiations with the North. The North was ALWAYS willing to talk, just not to budge on their conditions. Nixon and Henry the K just felt THEY could get a better deal by putting added pressure on the North Vietnamese. They used what they called a "madman strategy," as I remember. This strategy entailed the targeting of civilians in order to force the North Vietnamese to capitulate out of fear. In some circles, this is called terrorsim and murder; we in the United States justify it all the time however, because we used this tactic to end WW2.

You really need to take a gander at the Palace File, written by a former official in the South Vietnamese government. It may open your eyes and give you yet another thing to be disturbed about. As stated several times previously, the treaty signed in 73 was almost identical to the one on the table in 68. So what were the last five years about? Richard Nixon getting elected. Twice.

Edited December 14, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Len Colby]

Today I viewed in full "The Fog of War", a very interesting film that I recommend to those who have not seen it.

The film had a clip of Barry Goldwater's acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican GOP convention, at which he said:

Make no bones of this. Don't try to sweep this under the rug. We are at war in Vietnam. And yet the President, who is Commander-in-Chief of our forces, refuses to say - refuses to say, mind you, whether or not the objective over there is victory. And his Secretary of Defense continues to mislead and misinform the American people, and enough of it has gone by.

The film makes clear that Goldwater was right...

Another one of your absurd postings. It should be remembered that Goldwater wanted to use nuclear weapons on North Vietnam. He also wanted to send US troops into Hanoi. Luckily the Americans never elected such an idiot as president. If he had been elected in 1964 we would probably have had a full-scale nuclear war with China. That is why Bush worries me so much, he thinks too much like Goldwater. However, I suppose that is why you like him so much.

To strike a middle ground here if Tim was only referring to the quote above Goldwater was right, LBJ. McNamara and the rest of the administration weren't being straight with the American people about the war, if Tim was referring to the Arizonan's positions in '64 he was absurdly wrong.

John - You seem to have it in for Tim, you even recently threatened to delete some of his threads. Despite disagreeing with him 90% of the time I find him to be a valuable member of this forum often bringing up interesting points. I think we can tolerate ONE conservative here (I know there are a few others but they rarely post). Compare your treatment of him to that of Lynne who has been a VERY disruptive presence here, starting numerous absurd threads and spamming others, insulting anyone who disagrees with her etc. etc. with nary a word on your part. If I'm not mistaken you did chide her a month or two ago but have been silent since. I find it hard to believe that if she were expounding conservative opinions she wouldn’t have gotten the boot (or at least been 'raked over the coals') a long time ago, but ideally members should be judged by their behavior not their ideology.

[Len Colby]

As far as Whiz Kid McNamara, he totally screwed up, and admits it. He crunched some numbers early on that said there would be a point at which the North Vietnamese forces would begin shrinking, but then found out he was wrong and changed his mind. The CIA also had these numbers and honestly reported them in their reports. Johnson had access to these reports. He just chose to ignore them, and ordered the Pentagon to misrepresent the numbers in their reports. This was at the heart of the lawsuit brought against CBS by William Westmoreland. Both sides were right: CBS was right in that Westmoreland's figures grossly exaggerated enemies killed and enemy strength; Westmoreland was right in that he wasn't deceivng LBJ. In McNamara's In Retrospect, a remarkable book and the basis of The Fog of War, he admits that LBJ knew Westmoreland's numbers were cooked because LBJ himself had ordered them to be cooked in order to deceive congress. (At least that's how I remember it.) In any regard, he claims that LBJ was not deceived. Westoreland, by the way, never could accept that the North Vietnamese forces were growing in direct proportion to his own and like a good hawk insisted we were just around the corner from total victory. He'd insisted the same thing when there were 100,000 men, 200,000 men etc... all the way up to the half a mil it eventually became. His refusal to accept the failure of his command and his continued insistence that we were only 200,000 soldiers away etc. is part of the reason we're having this conversation now. He came home a total failure and insisted it was the fault of dem bureaucrats in Washington who tied his hands, etc. This myth has gained popularity over the years with those who have a hard time believing the great U.S. could ever make a mistake. Guess what? We did. And McNamara's book is the proof.

...

As stated several times previously, the treaty signed in 73 was almost identical to the one on the table in 68. So what were the last five years about? Richard Nixon getting elected. Twice.

The more one looks at it the more the current situation seems like a repeat of Vietnam. Substitute Bush for Nixon (regarding the election) and Rumsfeld and Chenny for Westmorland and McNamara, lower the number of troops "in country" and what you wrote could have been about Iraq.

[Bill Cheslock]

Pat wrote:

The Pentagon Papers includes documents revealing that the Pentagon knew that the more we killed the more joined up, the more we bombed the greater the resistance became.

Well, Pat, you must then at least admit my point that "whiz kid" McNamara was an idiot if the Pentagon knew this and he did not.

And it is my recollection that it was Nixon's intensified bombing that finally drove the N. Vietnamese to the bargaining table. I also recall that when Nixon decided more bombing was necessary, he had a trip to the Soviet Union planned and he decided to go ahead with the bombing even at the risk of blowing his trip to Russia. Well, he intensified the bombing and the Russkies did nothing, and the trip was on.

If Nixon had done the bombing early on thousands of American lives would have been saved.

But it was foolhardy for McNamara and LBJ to fight a war they did not intend to win. Fight a war with an intention of only achieving a "draw" and you will surely lose.

Would you agree with that much?

In these cynical times, I'm not so sure the U.S. ever had the goal of winning the war in Vietnam. Our goal may very well have been to slow down the growth of communism...at any cost, even if it meant fighting an unwinnable war. The eyes of history may still consider the U.S. the "winner".

As far as Whiz Kid McNamara, he totally screwed up, and admits it. He crunched some numbers early on that said there would be a point at which the North Vietnamese forces would begin shrinking, but then found out he was wrong and changed his mind. The CIA also had these numbers and honestly reported them in their reports. Johnson had access to these reports. He just chose to ignore them, and ordered the Pentagon to misrepresent the numbers in their reports. This was at the heart of the lawsuit brought against CBS by William Westmoreland. Both sides were right: CBS was right in that Westmoreland's figures grossly exaggerated enemies killed and enemy strength; Westmoreland was right in that he wasn't deceivng LBJ. In McNamara's In Retrospect, a remarkable book and the basis of The Fog of War, he admits that LBJ knew Westmoreland's numbers were cooked because LBJ himself had ordered them to be cooked in order to deceive congress. (At least that's how I remember it.) In any regard, he claims that LBJ was not deceived. Westoreland, by the way, never could accept that the North Vietnamese forces were growing in direct proportion to his own and like a good hawk insisted we were just around the corner from total victory. He'd insisted the same thing when there were 100,000 men, 200,000 men etc... all the way up to the half a mil it eventually became. His refusal to accept the failure of his command and his continued insistence that we were only 200,000 soldiers away etc. is part of the reason we're having this conversation now. He came home a total failure and insisted it was the fault of dem bureaucrats in Washington who tied his hands, etc. This myth has gained popularity over the years with those who have a hard time believing the great U.S. could ever make a mistake. Guess what? We did. And McNamara's book is the proof.

And your bit about Nixon and the bombing is largely untrue. It was Nixon who drove the North Vietnamese away from the tables in 68 when he got word to Thieu through Madame Chennault to cut off negotiations with the North. The North was ALWAYS willing to talk, just not to budge on their conditions. Nixon and Henry the K just felt THEY could get a better deal by putting added pressure on the North Vietnamese. They used what they called a "madman strategy," as I remember. This strategy entailed the targeting of civilians in order to force the North Vietnamese to capitulate out of fear. In some circles, this is called terrorsim and murder; we in the United States justify it all the time however, because we used this tactic to end WW2.

You really need to take a gander at the Palace File, written by a former official in the South Vietnamese government. It may open your eyes and give you yet another thing to be disturbed about. As stated several times previously, the treaty signed in 73 was almost identical to the one on the table in 68. So what were the last five years about? Richard Nixon getting elected. Twice.

Pat:

When looking at the extension of the Vietnam War, we also have to look at the profits in

dollars the war machine in the U.S. was realizing. Brown and Root, a coporation that had ties

to Lyndon Johnson, made huge profits by being awarded dredging contracts along the coast.

By the way, Brown and Root is now a subsidary of Halliburton. The connections to then

and now are quite interesting.

Bill C

[Pat Speer]

Pat:

When looking at the extension of the Vietnam War, we also have to look at the profits in

dollars the war machine in the U.S. was realizing. Brown and Root, a coporation that had ties

to Lyndon Johnson, made huge profits by being awarded dredging contracts along the coast.

By the way, Brown and Root is now a subsidary of Halliburton. The connections to then

and now are quite interesting.

Bill C

There is also the General Dynamics connection. LBJ was certainly under a lot of pressure to keep the war going and growing by his ole pals in big business. At the height of the war, LBJ closed the naval shipyards, deciding it was more cost-efficient to use private contractors exclusively. One of the companies to be rewarded with billions of dollars in new business was General Dynamics. Of course, General Dynamics was also the recipient of Johnson and McNamara largesse through their selection of its TFX fighter over a superior fighter created by Boeing. The Boeing fighter was both preferred by the Pentagon and cheaper to make, but Johnson and his cronies insisted in the more expensive fighter, which only so happened to be made by a Texas company. Just so happened to be the home state of Secretary of the navy Fred Korth as well... McNamara is reported to have wanted the TFX because he believed having interchangeable parts would be an economic advantage in the long run. (The TFX would be used by the Air Force and the Navy). He failed to understand that the needs for land-based fighters and carrier-based fighters were different. His Ford background was NOT applicable to understanding the military. The conservative notion that the Federal Gov should be run like a business by businessman hit a brick wall in Vietnam, and yet we don't seem to have learned from it. Cheney's inclusion of Haliburton into the Iraq effort will be studied one day, and revealed to be one of the most corrupt acts of modern times. I predict. (I mean, how can we justify paying a private citizen 150k to drive the same truck a 35k a year serviceman would drive? Especially when the private citizen is under no obligation to stick it out when the going gets tough. It's a complete joke.)

Edited December 15, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Bill Cheslock]

Pat:

When looking at the extension of the Vietnam War, we also have to look at the profits in

dollars the war machine in the U.S. was realizing. Brown and Root, a coporation that had ties

to Lyndon Johnson, made huge profits by being awarded dredging contracts along the coast.

By the way, Brown and Root is now a subsidary of Halliburton. The connections to then

and now are quite interesting.

Bill C

There is also the General Dynamics connection. LBJ was certainly under a lot of pressure to keep the war going and growing by his ole pals in big business. At the height of the war, LBJ closed the naval shipyards, deciding it was more cost-efficient to use private contractors exclusively. One of the companies to be rewarded with billions of dollars in new business was General Dynamics. Of course, General Dynamics was also the recipient of Johnson and McNamara largesse through their selection of its TFX fighter over a superior fighter created by Boeing. The Boeing fighter was both preferred by the Pentagon and cheaper to make, but Johnson and his cronies insisted in the more expensive fighter, which only so happened to be made by a Texas company. Just so happened to be the home state of Secretary of the navy Fred Korth as well... McNamara is reported to have wanted the TFX because he believed having interchangeable parts would be an economic advantage in the long run. (The TFX wuld be used by the Air Force and the Navy). He failed to understand that the needs for land-based fighters and carrier-based fighters were different. His Ford background was NOT applicable to understanding the military. The conservative notion that the Federal Gov should be run like a business by businessman hit a brick wall in Vietnam, and yet we don't seem to have learned from it. Cheney's inclusion of Haliburton into the Iraq effort will be studied one day, and revealed to be one of the most corrupt acts of modern times. I predict. (I mean, how can we justify paying a private citizen 150k to drive the same truck a 35k a year serviceman would drive? Especially when the private citizen is under no obligation to stick it out when the going gets tough. It's a complete joke.)

If I remember correctly, Kennedy decided to take the short flight to Dallas that Friday because

a motorcade route would've brought him near or by General Dynamics. As for Cheney, I read

in today's Cape Cod Times that he has stuck tax payers with $ millions for trips he and members

of his office took the past four years. The source for this information in the CC Times is the

"Center for Public Integrity," a nonpartisan research organization based in Washington.

I agree Pat. It is indeed a joke, but the American tax payer isn't laughing. It seems more and

more corruption is being exposed in the name of this present administration.

Bill C

[Tim Gratz]

Pat wrote:

You really need to take a gander at the Palace File, written by a former official in the South Vietnamese government. It may open your eyes and give you yet another thing to be disturbed about. As stated several times previously, the treaty signed in 73 was almost identical to the one on the table in 68. So what were the last five years about? Richard Nixon getting elected. Twice.

Pat, indeed I read "The Palace file" and I did conclude it seemed a logical indictment of Nixon. As I recall it stated Nixon had given private assurances to the South Vietnamese government to prevent it from publicly stating its severe criticism of the 1973 peace agreement. I was so impressed with the book, in fact, that once years ago when I was in DC on other business I made an appointment with the author (he was teaching at Howard University) and had a nice half-hour chat with the author.

Edited December 15, 2005 by Tim Gratz