PDA

View Full Version : Bush channels the ghost of LBJ



PixelPusher
01-11-2007, 06:41 PM
"E-Day": It was 40 years ago today (http://www.attytood.com/2007/01/eday_it_was_40_years_ago_today.html)
This comes with a huge hat tip to a good Friend of Attytood who was born 40 years ago on this date -- Happy Birthday, dude! -- and as a result is more up to speed on what happened on January 10, 1967, than the rest of us.

The big news story that night? President Lyndon B. Johnson's State of the Union address.

The topic that dominated all others: Vietnam.

I'm going to guide you to some excerpts of that address -- exactly 40 years ago tonight. See how it compares to some of the excerpts from President Bush's speech that were just released minutes ago:

-------------------------

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: We have chosen to fight a limited war in Vietnam in an attempt to prevent a larger war--a war almost certain to follow, I believe, if the Communists succeed in overrunning and taking over South Vietnam by aggression and by force. I believe, and I am supported by some authority, that if they are not checked now the world can expect to pay a greater price to check them later.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror – and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: I wish I could report to you that the conflict is almost over. This I cannot do. We face more cost, more loss, and more agony. For the end is not yet. I cannot promise you that it will come this year--or come next year. Our adversary still believes, I think, tonight, that he can go on fighting longer than we can, and longer than we and our allies will be prepared to stand up and resist.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: Our South Vietnamese allies are also being tested tonight. Because they must provide real security to the people living in the countryside. And this means reducing the terrorism and the armed attacks which kidnaped and killed 26,900 civilians in the last 32 months, to levels where they can be successfully controlled by the regular South Vietnamese security forces. It means bringing to the villagers an effective civilian government that they can respect, and that they can rely upon and that they can participate in, and that they can have a personal stake in. We hope that government is now beginning to emerge.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: This forward movement is rooted in the ambitions and the interests of Asian nations themselves. It was precisely this movement that we hoped to accelerate when I spoke at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore in April 1965, and I pledged "a much more massive effort to improve the life of man" in that part of the world, in the hope that we could take some of the funds that we were spending on bullets and bombs and spend it on schools and production.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: We have chosen to fight a limited war in Vietnam in an attempt to prevent a larger war--a war almost certain to follow, I believe, if the Communists succeed in overrunning and taking over South Vietnam by aggression and by force. I believe, and I am supported by some authority, that if they are not checked now the world can expect to pay a greater price to check them later.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time…In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region.

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: A time of testing--yes. And a time of transition. The transition is sometimes slow; sometimes unpopular; almost always very painful; and often quite dangerous. But we have lived with danger for a long time before, and we shall live with it for a long time yet to come. We know that "man is born unto trouble." We also know that this Nation was not forged and did not survive and grow and prosper without a great deal of sacrifice from a great many men.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship…A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them – and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

----------------

Not much to add here -- the words of Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush pretty much speak for themselves.

Two things, though. First of all, only 7,917 American troop had died in Vietnam through the end of 1966, or ten days before Johnson's speech. From the beginning of 1967 though the end of the war, an addition 50,285 -- more than six times as many -- Americans would lose their lives.

Also, and we're not endorsing this action by any means, then or now, but it is interesting to note that in that 1967 SOTU, LBJ also called for a 6 percent surcharge on personal and corporate income taxes to pay for the cost of the war. That's a level of responsibility -- and yes, sacrifice -- for war that our current president is unwilling to take.

No one historical event is exactly like the other, but some of the similarities highlighted above are pretty striking.

clambake
01-11-2007, 06:47 PM
It's because they both have faced humiliating defeats. Once your in a hole, stop digging.

ChumpDumper
01-11-2007, 06:56 PM
No You guys are way off Freddie "The Beetle" Barnes said he's Lincoln.

Shows what you know.

PixelPusher
01-11-2007, 07:03 PM
LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: We have chosen to fight a limited war in Vietnam in an attempt to prevent a larger war--a war almost certain to follow, I believe, if the Communists succeed in overrunning and taking over South Vietnam by aggression and by force. I believe, and I am supported by some authority, that if they are not checked now the world can expect to pay a greater price to check them later.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time…In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region.
They both shared the belief that their military operations would the the decisive moment in the larger ideological struggle (Communism/WarOnTerror), but ideology is won or lost in the realm of...ideas. Today, Vietnam's (like China) Communist Party establishment continues to slowly errode from the inevitability of capitalism. Capitalism isn't a panecea, but in the battle of ideas: Captialism > Communism.

This doesn't translate perfectly to our "War on Terror" since that very phrase is in itself a rhetorical disaster, except to the extent that the muzzle of an M-16 isn't the most effective way to spread the ideology of freedom and democracy

smeagol
01-11-2007, 10:24 PM
Do the Democrats of to-day remember LBJ with fondness?

ChumpDumper
01-11-2007, 10:31 PM
Not for his foreign policy.

Nbadan
01-11-2007, 11:48 PM
Do the Democrats of to-day remember LBJ with fondness?

Only the great society. By 1968, LBJ knew he made a mistake escalating Vietnam, so he withdrew his renomination.

Nbadan
01-12-2007, 12:03 AM
They both shared the belief that their military operations would the the decisive moment in the larger ideological struggle (Communism/WarOnTerror), but ideology is won or lost in the realm of...ideas. Today, Vietnam's (like China) Communist Party establishment continues to slowly errode from the inevitability of capitalism. Capitalism isn't a panecea, but in the battle of ideas: Captialism > Communism.

This doesn't translate perfectly to our "War on Terror" since that very phrase is in itself a rhetorical disaster, except to the extent that the muzzle of an M-16 isn't the most effective way to spread the ideology of freedom and democracy

Bingo, Capitalism florished while communism floundered because it was the superior economic system. Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, floundered for years under a string of ruthless dictators, but the region is being transformed today into a growing economic power-house because of low wages and relative government stability. Even though we lost the war, as we may do in Iraq, our system eventually won anyway because it is a superior system.

That is a hard lesson learned that we should adopt in the greater M.E.. Yes our ideology is threatened by radical extremists who want to kick us out of the region and set up a cluster of religious olygarchies like in Iran, but our ideals based on individual freedoms, equality for women, separation of church and government, etc...etc...etc...are superior, and unless we keep fucking up big like we have in Iraq, sooner or later, who-ever winds up ruling the area is gonna see that the only way to raise the Arab and Persian population are out of wide-spread poverty, is to adopt the very ideals of capitalism that the extremists have been fighting. That's how we win the war on terra.

gtownspur
01-12-2007, 12:10 AM
Bingo, Capitalism florished while communism floundered because it was the superior economic system. Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, floundered for years under a string of ruthless dictators, but the region is being transformed today into a growing economic power-house because of low wages and relative government stability. Even though we lost the war, as we may do in Iraq, our system eventually won anyway because it is a superior system.

That is a hard lesson learned that we should adopt in the greater M.E.. Yes our ideology is threatened by radical extremists who want to kick us out of the region and set up a cluster of religious olygarchies like in Iran, but our ideals based on individual freedoms, equality for women, separation of church and government, etc...etc...etc...are superior, and unless we keep fucking up big like we have in Iraq, sooner or later, who-ever winds up ruling the area is gonna see that the only way to raise the Arab and Persian population are out of wide-spread poverty, is to adopt the very ideals of capitalism that the extremists have been fighting. That's how we win the war on terra.

wow, you and Rush think alike on this subject.

He believes we should be exporting capitalism and not democracy.

PixelPusher
01-12-2007, 01:31 AM
wow, you and Rush think alike on this subject.

He believes we should be exporting capitalism and not democracy.
Like Democracy, Capitalism doesn't flow that well from the muzzle of an M-16 either.

Still, I would agree with proposition that capitalism is a necessary primer for democracy, as it starts the process of redistributing the wealth among the populace. The value that culture places on Human Rights is another.

Nbadan
01-12-2007, 01:49 AM
Like Democracy, Capitalism doesn't flow that well from the muzzle of an M-16 either.

Still, I would agree with proposition that capitalism is a necessary primer for democracy, as it starts the process of redistributing the wealth among the populace. The value that culture places on Human Rights is another.

That's so true look at South and Central America and Africa. Capitalists have had a virtual raw material warehouse on these continents for decades and the local leaders, not realizing the true value of there irreplaceable resources, or simply crooked theives who stole from their nations, have raped the populous and have nothing but banana democracies to show for it. That's the reason why today we see socialist leftists leaders like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Ortega in Nicaragua making polical surges.

PixelPusher
01-12-2007, 02:05 AM
That's so true look at South and Central America and Africa. Capitalists have had a virtual raw material warehouse on these continents for decades and the local leaders, not realizing the true value of there irreplaceable resources, or simply crooked theives who stole from their nations, have raped the populous and have nothing but banana democracies to show for it. That's the reason why today we see socialist leftists leaders like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Ortega in Nicaragua making polical surges.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's not a panecea; just a starting point. Whether it's nationalized or monopolized, economies based solely on the export of a natural resource are typically bad for the other 99% of that country's population, so if that's the kind of "capitalism" going on, then no it's not a good primer for democracy.

BIG IRISH
01-12-2007, 02:37 AM
NBADAN & PIXEL PUSHER While I agree "that capitalism is a necessary primer for democracy....
I would like to say In 1968 My "sensibilities" became "well-rounded"/matured
while I was in Nam, where I heard the lies, saw the incomptence of the military
civilian leadership and the career first (careerism) of Senior Military Leaders.
I ask you this : Is the same thing happening again? :bang :bang :bang

Nbadan
01-12-2007, 03:14 AM
Nah, I don't think so. In Vietnam, the war was the economy and most of the rebuilding, and thus spending, an was by the U.S.military. We were pouring billions of dollars into Vietnam, but like in Iraq, the accountability of reconstruction projects, which doesn't ever make the movies, fell short.

Iraq, on the other hand, had a vibrant economy before the U.S.embargo, two Gulf Wars, and Civil War. We are pouring billions of dollars into Iraq, but much of it is not going to local Iraqi workers, contractors, and subsequently to government taxe coffers to help pay for national defense, but instead to foreign U.S. companies who are contracted to do most of the heavy rebuilding and supplying of troops. Well, those U.S. companies certainly aren't gonna reinvest their profits back into Iraq. They are much more likely to send them to tax-haven accounts in places like the Canary Islands were they will sit for years doing nobody any good.

Nbadan
01-12-2007, 04:09 AM
In Surging Toward The Holy Grail, PePe Escobar from Asia Time online (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IA12Ak05.html) gets it:

Grabbing those oil fields by the horn


Washington's successive divide-and-rule tactics - facilitating a possible genocide of Sunnis, contemplating a mass slaughter of Shi'ites, betting on a regional Sunni/Shi'ite war - never for a second lose sight of the riches of Iraqi. For Big Business, an Iraq eaten alive by Balkanization is the ideal environment for the triumph of Anglo-American petrocracy.

A new Iraqi oil law will most likely be voted on in Parliament in the next few weeks, before the arrival of Bush's 21,500 men, and it should be in effect in March. The law is Anglo-American Big Oil's holy grail: the draft has been carefully scrutinized by Washington, Big Oil and the International Monetary Fund, but not by Iraqi politicians. The profit-sharing agreements enshrined by the law are immensely profitable for Big Oil. And crucially, the law prevents any Iraqi government from nationalizing the oil industry - as the majority of Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) member states did. In essence, it's a game of "if you nationalize, we invade you - again". So the law fulfills the early-2003 neo-con boast of "we are the new OPEC".

Iraq's petrodollars will turn to mush - or rather, as with Saudi Arabia, be recycled back to US banks. Security company Blackwater will make a killing "protecting" Iraqi pipelines. Bechtel and Halliburton will get myriad fat contracts to rebuild everything the US has bombarded since 1991.

But what's the use of an oil law in a 100-cadavers-a-day hellhole? Enter the escalation as a way of providing "stability". Whichever way the coming surge goes - ethnic cleansing of Sunnis, the battle of Sadr City - what matters is not the piling up of Arab Muslim (or American) bodies, but how much less cumbersome is the path toward the holy oil grail. Big Business will make a deal with anyone that facilitates the passing of the oil law, be it Maliki's Da'wa Party, the SCIRI, or - in a wildest-dream version - the Sadrists or al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The overwhelming majority of Iraqis, Sunni and Shi'ite, want the US out, and as soon as possible. A rape of Iraq's oil wealth enshrined by a Parliament-approved oil law would certainly lead to national unrest. For the moment it's fair to assume the US is taking no chances in its backroom deals, as the SCIRI's support for the new law, via Vice President Adil Abdul Mahdi, is practically assured. Da'wa must be in the process of being bribed to death.

But Muqtada is another story. He is close to some Sunni factions. They are getting closer. And crucially, they agree on being Iraqi nationalists who want the Americans out. There's a very strong possibility of the Sadrists joining the muqawama in the event the oil law is approved. Thus the preemptive, two-pronged Bush escalation on the war front - against both Muqtada and nationalist Sunnis.

smeagol
01-12-2007, 07:29 AM
Bingo, Capitalism florished while communism floundered because it was the superior economic system. Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, floundered for years under a string of ruthless dictators, but the region is being transformed today into a growing economic power-house because of low wages and relative government stability. Even though we lost the war, as we may do in Iraq, our system eventually won anyway because it is a superior system.

That is a hard lesson learned that we should adopt in the greater M.E.. Yes our ideology is threatened by radical extremists who want to kick us out of the region and set up a cluster of religious olygarchies like in Iran, but our ideals based on individual freedoms, equality for women, separation of church and government, etc...etc...etc...are superior, and unless we keep fucking up big like we have in Iraq, sooner or later, who-ever winds up ruling the area is gonna see that the only way to raise the Arab and Persian population are out of wide-spread poverty, is to adopt the very ideals of capitalism that the extremists have been fighting. That's how we win the war on terra.

I agree, which is wierd.

Question for you: You who praise Chavez so much, what brand of capitalism is he preaching?

DarkReign
01-12-2007, 10:39 AM
wow, you and Rush think alike on this subject.

He believes we should be exporting capitalism and not democracy.

Thats not exactly a huge leap of logic. Our system is better, more versatile, and much more beneficial. To quote PP "...the muzzle of an M-16 isn't the most effective way to spread the ideology of freedom and democracy".

It never was, it never will be.