Rep. Johnson: Stay the Course in Iraq

[ggoose25]

Rep. Sam Johnson, a veteran and former POW in Vietnam, speaks out on the congressional vote to begin bringing troops home from Iraq.
WEB-EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW
By Daren Briscoe
Newsweek
Updated: 12:01 p.m. CT April 2, 2007

April 2, 2007 - Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas draws a crowd when he talks about war. Johnson, a 29-year veteran of the Air Force who served in Korea and Vietnam, spent some seven years as a prisoner of war in Hanoi after his plane was shot down in 1966. As Republicans—anxious about a Democratic drive to start bringing troops home from Iraq—plotted strategy, they turned to Johnson to deliver the final GOP floor speech before the House voted. Now that both chambers have approved measures calling for withdrawal, a battle is looming in conference committee—and President Bush is threatening a veto. NEWSWEEK's Daren Briscoe spoke with Johnson about how his experiences in combat shaped his view of Iraq policy—and what he thinks will happen in the coming months.

NEWSWEEK: How does your personal experience as a vet in Korea and Vietnam, and as a POW in Vietnam for nearly seven years, shape your thinking in the debate about the best way forward in Iraq?
Sam Johnson: People don't listen to history. If you look back to Vietnam, when we were POWs being held by the Viet Cong, we heard them broadcasting that our Congress had cut off funding. Congress did the same thing then that they're trying to do now—pull money from our war effort. They let the communists overrun South Vietnam after they'd already retreated to the point of giving up. We didn't support South Vietnam, and the communists sensed weakness and moved back in. I'm afraid that's what's going to happen again.

Do you think it's valid to compare what happened in Vietnam to what's going on in Iraq today?
I think it's a valid comparison. The only difference was we were fighting communists then in one country, and we're fighting terrorists now, worldwide. If you look at this Iranian capture of those British seamen, they acted the same way the communists did. They're parading them around on TV just like the Viet Cong did with American POWs. I don't think you can call the terrorists we're fighting now communists, but it's obvious that they've taken some lessons from somebody.

And you think what the Democrats in Congress are doing now compares to what the Democratic Congress did during Vietnam?
Sure it does. Furthermore, nowadays I think it won't just prompt the takeover of one country or part of one country, but it will stimulate activity worldwide in terrorist environments. They've already said they're out to annihilate the U.S. and Israel.

You and Congressman John Murtha are both Vietnam vets, but you're on opposite sides of the Iraq debate. What's the dynamic like between you two?
I respect him as an ex-Marine, but his thought process has gone in the wrong direction on this and I think he's totally off base. I don't know what's made him go that way. As I said on the floor, Marines don't quit, and I don't know why he wants to quit in Iraq.

How strong is support for the president on the war at this point among Republicans?
I think it's very strong. As you know he had us all up to the White House [last Thursday], and we talked for an hour and a half. I think the support was tremendous, except for maybe one or two guys. This is not about [President] Bush; it's about protecting America and the world from terror. I think we all understand that, whether Bush backs us or not. We're making some progress over there, and we're going to have to wait until the end of the year to figure this thing out, but there can't be but one commander in chief.

Did you know whether Republicans like [Nebraska Sen.] Chuck Hagel and [Oregon Sen.] Gordon Smith had their doubts from the outset? Do you worry that as the war drags on, more Republicans will follow their lead and begin withdrawing support?
Those particular guys weren't vitally behind the effort to begin with, but I really don't know.

You're an influential vote in the caucus. How do you keep the other members in line on an issue as difficult as this one?
I think we're just working together and making sure everyone understands what the real issues are. We don't want to stop the war until we've won it. I've got a discharge petition out there right now asking whether you want to fund the troops, yes or no? If we can get enough votes (218), a vote will be forced on the floor, and that's a good thing. If you ask most Americans, "Do you want to win the war?" they'll still say, "Yes."

Was there enough oversight of the war on the GOP's watch?
I don't think we did enough oversight anywhere. I do think the war was being run fairly competently from the Pentagon and from the commanders on the ground. Overseas, Bush and [former Defense secretary Donald] Rumsfeld leaned on their commanders. I've been in meetings where Rumsfeld physically took notes from commanders and put them in action. You've got to lean on your commanders right now because we've changed the rules of engagement. We are making progress according to every report I see coming out of there. We can chase [the terrorists] wherever we need to, to make sure that the threat is eliminated. The president told us just [the other day] that the [Iraqi] borders have been put under control, so whoever is coming through from Iran or Syria is going to be stopped. That will put an end to some of this chaos they're bringing in.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17914305/site/newsweek/

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

[PixelPusher]

Because we pulled out of Vietnam, Communism took over the world and flourishes to this day...oh, wait...

[whottt]

Because we pulled out of Vietnam, Communism took over the world and flourishes to this day...oh, wait...

Why don't you just say fuck the Vietnamese and that you could give two shits what happened to them? Takes fewer words.

This isn't Vietnam...only you libs think it is.

Voluntary Military
Religious Fascism
No Jungles


Many, many other core differences.

The only common denominators are the idiots protesting their own country and military. Only in America....

[boutons_]

A key parallel is that S.Viet Nam puppet govt and army were weak, the US would have had to stay for many more years, 10s of 1000s of more dead+injured. And at the end of those years, with insecurity still the rule, the eventual VN govt would still have not been able to take over and resist the final onslaught from the North.

Exactly the same in Iraq. The Iraqi govt, army, police are weak, infiltrated by insurgents and militia, untrusted by the Shiites and Sunnis. They aren't even trusted by the US military. The US will have to stay there for years, 10s of 1000s more US dead and injured, standing by impotently as the Iraqis slaughter each other. Public security and reconstruction (there are no more funds for reconstruction) will be non-existent. After many more years, the Iraqi govt/army/police will still not be strong, will be Shiiite dominated and untrustd by the Sunnis. When the Americans stand down, now or later, Iraq will not stand up but will go up in flames.

All of the above in Iraq has fuck all to with libs, Dems cuttting off funding, the press, the US citiizens, or slime jobs from Rove and his dubya-suckers on this board.

The FUCKUP in Iraq, the loss of Iraq to Muslims radicals and al-Quaida, is 100% on the shoulders of the lying Repugs, the incompetent Repugs. Was in 20003, is now, and will forever be on the REPUGS.

Eat shit, Whott, you're a loser who backed a losers, liars, and incompetents in dubya and dickhead. 3200 US dead, 30K US injured.

[ChumpDumper]

It's true Iraq isn't quite like Vietnam.

There was already an insurgency/civil war in Vietnam before we went in.

By half-assing the invasion and occupation, we created the insurgency and civil war in Iraq.

[whottt]

By half-assing the invasion and occupation, we created the insurgency and civil war in Iraq.


Yeah cuz...we can teach the Sunnis and Shias to sing Kumbaya.

There was one way to stop the insurgency...kill all the Sunni Baathists.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah cuz...we can teach the Sunnis and Shias to sing Kumbaya.No, because Bush sent in half the troops that were needed for the job.
There was one way to stop the insurgency...kill all the Sunni Baathists.We didn't send in enough troops to do that either. And its not like the Shiites haven't killed our soldiers either. Your view is comically simplistic as always.

[exstatic]

The only common denominators are the idiots protesting their own country and military. Only in America....
2. Shitty, weak-ass ineffective puppet government.
3. Impotent national army.
4. Just as in Vietnam where the VC and NVA didn't have that fact tattooed on their foreheads, neither do the Sunnis or Shia. The invisible enemy...hiding in plain sight.

[whottt]

No, because Bush sent in half the troops that were needed for the job.
What job...of removing Saddam? Funny...I coulda sworn that was pretty effective.


Of securing the borders? Valid to an extent, but only if the admins goals were the ones publicly stated, which I seriously doubt, since you have to be a pretty stupid fuck to announce the war plan where those you are fighting can see it.




We didn't send in enough troops to do that either.

We sent in enough to eradicate the backbone of the insugency...in fact we had the backbone captive...should we have gone a little Nazi on their ass?


And its not like the Shiites haven't killed our soldiers either.

Irrelevant to the point...the insurgency isn't aimed at us, it never was, it was aimed at keeping the majority Shias from seizing power, legally.



Your view is comically simplistic as always.

No Chump, my view isn't simple, it's accurate.


Only an extreme optimist would have expected us to topple Saddam and having all Iraqis sing Kumbaya with us.

There was going to be difficulty of some sort, no matter what, militarily, politically, it's the fucking mid-east. Uou consider this disastrous...I say you are being extremely negative and unrealistic as to where we would be right now in everything went as pefectly as it could have.

But IMO, and I have no factual basis for this...which puts me on even footing with 100% of the lib takes on this forum....


I believe they always wanted a kill zone to attract as many potential and future terrorists into a military conflict as possible...

How else can you use the military to combat terrorism?

And I believe there are a lot more dead terrorists now than there would have been otherwise.

Are the more now than there were before?

Sure, but there were more 5 years ago than there were 10 years ago, and that will remain true so long as you have a bunch of dickheads in power over there.

I believe they wanted Iraq before Iran purposely.

I believe many other things that to me make tactical sense...that I have seen in this war.

I don't care what is stated publicly, or has been stated in opposition(blatantaly in the name of political opportunism), the true goals were ones they never stated.

Their biggest mistake was underestimating the remaining power and over-all cultural impact of the communist backed Vietnam Anti-War/Useful Idiot Movement.


IF there's one thing commies can do...it's own idiots for life.

[whottt]

2. Shitty, weak-ass ineffective puppet government.

That's funny...I coulda sworn the board libs were saying the US got fucked by the Iraqi people when they elected their officials.

Why don't you come out and say that if it's a Pro(or non -hostile)-US Govt it's a puppet or a lap dog...

That's your criteria right there, be honest about it...let the stupidity shine in all it's glory.


3. Impotent national army.


4. Just as in Vietnam where the VC and NVA didn't have that fact tattooed on their foreheads, neither do the Sunnis or Shia. The invisible enemy...hiding in plain sight.


Um...major difference, there aren't any fucking jungles, a huge boon to guerilla warfare, desserts are a huge negative for it, it's just a matter of time till the resources are cut off and the people that don't like drinking their own piss take control as long as someone else is standing up to the bully.

And you don't build an army out of scrubs in 2 months...especially when their opposition is the previous military.


Trust me...humans don't like drinking their own piss...civilization will win if given the chance.

It hasn't been handled as well as it could have been...it also hasn't gone as badly as you guys want it to have gone, to justify your primitive, guttural and uncontrollable anti-Bushism.


You guys don't want us to win...because you'll be proven complete fools, the stupidest of the stupidest, if we do.

You will never give Bush credit...Id on't give a fuck if every terrorist in the world became pro-American tomorrow...you guys will always says this war was a mistake, you will never admit to being wrong.

[PixelPusher]

I believe they always wanted a kill zone to attract as many potential and future terrorists into a military conflict as possible...

How else can you use the military to combat terrorism?
And a military solution is the ONLY solution, right whottt?


And I believe there are a lot more dead terrorists now than there would have been otherwise. There's a lot more live terrorists than before too. The math doesn't work out in our favor.


Are the more now than there were before?

Sure, but there were more 5 years ago than there were 10 years ago, and that will remain true so long as you have a bunch of dickheads in power over there.
Yep, removing that dickhead Sadaam did wonders to quell terrorism.

[whottt]

And a military solution is the ONLY solution, right whottt?


Go make peace with a Grizzly...Bear Turd.

What a stupid fucking statement...

More often than not war is the solution.

When hasn't this been the case?

What would have happened in WWII if we had tried to make peace with Hitler? Moron.




There's a lot more live terrorists than before too. The math doesn't work out in our favor.

Show me the math douchebag...show me how many terrorists there would have been if we hadn't gone into Iraq...

Prove that statement, or STFU because I can gurandamntee you there are a lot more dead ones than there would have been had we not gone into Iraq. I can prove it.



Yep, removing that dickhead Sadaam did wonders to quell terrorism.

I don't think anyone claimed removing Saddam would stop terrorism...link?

Only that it would remove a likely linkup between terrorism and WMD.

You don't think Saddam would have sold some plutonium and nukes to terrorists if he had gotten them?


You don't think the Iranians will do that?

Fucking fool.

[ChumpDumper]

What job...of removing Saddam? Funny...I coulda sworn that was pretty effective.Myopic as always. Never thinking of what comes after. Are you sure you didn't work for Rumsfeld?
Of securing the borders? Valid to an extent, but only if the admins goals were the ones publicly stated, which I seriously doubt, since you have to be a pretty stupid fuck to announce the war plan where those you are fighting can see it.Valid to every extent. When you think victory is only removing Saddam, you do things like rush to Baghdad without securing the land you've already crossed over, abandoning weapons stockpiles to whom? Whoever wants it -- insurgents, militias, Al Qaeda. The car bombing started right after the invasion; that shit didn't come from Iran. Also there's that little issue of putting over 700,000 armed men out on the street with no pay and no pension after we told them they would be part of the reconstruction -- without even thinking of disarming them. That was brilliant -- maybe you were working for Bremer at that point.
We sent in enough to eradicate the backbone of the insugency...in fact we had the backbone captive...should we have gone a little Nazi on their ass?When? Who? I know you love Nazis but you might want to clarify exactly who you think is fighting in Iraq.
Irrelevant to the point...the insurgency isn't aimed at us, it never was, it was aimed at keeping the majority Shias from seizing power, legally. Irrelevant only to the ignorant. Shias have killed Americans. Why would you call dead American soldiers irrelevant?
No Chump, my view isn't simple, it's accurate.If you had been accurate we would have been welcomed as liberators with candy and flowers, the insurgency never would have formed, WMDs would have been found and we'd have only 30,000 troops in Iraq instead of 130,000. You haven't been accurate about much of anything.
Only an extreme optimist would have expected us to topple Saddam and having all Iraqis sing Kumbaya with us. You mean guys like Bush, Rumsfled, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Libby, Feith, Kristol, Adelman, Perle. Do you remember the cakewalk theory?
There was going to be difficulty of some sort, no matter what, militarily, politically, it's the fucking mid-east. Uou consider this disastrous...I say you are being extremely negative and unrealistic as to where we would be right now in everything went as pefectly as it could have.I am saying that the abovementioned leaders completely underestimated the difficulties that would follow the removal of Saddam. Not sending enough troops in the first place in the face of all previous sane military planning was the first in a long line of disasterous moves made by this administration before, during and after the removal of Saddam. They have made some moves to mitigate their errors, especially putting Petraeus in charge, but there is no way anyone can say this was fully thought out or well executed on the whole. It was a rush job and a hack job, micromanaged by a bunch of dilettante chicken hawks who never gave any serious thought to what could happen in a place which had only known one-party rule and one ruler for the past 35 years; those dilettantes quite effectively created a power vaccuum that has been filled with the factions that are fighting each other and us to this day.
But IMO, and I have no factual basis for this...which puts me on even footing with 100% of the lib takes on this forum....


I believe they always wanted a kill zone to attract as many potential and future terrorists into a military conflict as possible...

How else can you use the military to combat terrorism?

And I believe there are a lot more dead terrorists now than there would have been otherwise.

Are the more now than there were before?

Sure, but there were more 5 years ago than there were 10 years ago, and that will remain true so long as you have a bunch of dickheads in power over there.

I believe they wanted Iraq before Iran purposely.

I believe many other things that to me make tactical sense...that I have seen in this war.

I don't care what is stated publicly, or has been stated in opposition(blatantaly in the name of political opportunism), the true goals were ones they never stated.

Their biggest mistake was underestimating the remaining power and over-all cultural impact of the communist backed Vietnam Anti-War/Useful Idiot Movement.


IF there's one thing commies can do...it's own idiots for life.The administration's near-complete lack of vision for a postwar Iraq leads me to believe almost the polar opposite. I believe these guys thought they could rush in, take out Saddam and leave a few thousand troops to help the brand new Iraqi army control a unified Iraq where all groups got along because the minorities had a stake in the politics and riches produced by the country under a democractic government. Iran's government would be largely preoccupied by the new shining bulwark of democracy on its own border and would have to deal with their internal democratic movements that were inspired by Iraq.

Iraq was a special case in the axis of evil. It was already weakened to about one third of its peak power and already under our thumb militarily. It was so weak Operation Desert Fox almost inadvertantly brought down Saddam's government. We had also been there before and most of the neocons felt a real guilt or anger at not having taken out Saddam the first time around -- to say nothing of the attempt to kill the current president's father. There is no such collective hard-on to take out the governments of North Korea or Iran. Regime change simply wouldn't be as easy as it was in Iraq. Why are we even trying to talk with North Korea if all Bush wants to do is fight? Why is there an open invitation from Bush to talk with Iran if it suspends its nuclear program?

No, I don't think Bush is looking for an excuse to start another war while he is still dealing with two other unfinished wars. I see Bush's decision to invade Iraq as misguided adventurism and macho overcompensation for being so wilfully ignorant of the real threat of terrorism before 9/11. Even if his dedication to the doctrine of regime change hasn't waned in the face of the unexpected and unplanned for disasters in Iraq, those problems have effectively put any further military adventures on hold indefinitely.

[ggoose25]

The reason I posted this interview wasn't to debate how similar or different Iraq was to Vietnam, but because I thought it was interesting to see Rep. Johnson support the president's plan.

I have always been against the war in Iraq before it even began, but also FOR the war on terrorism. Afghanistan and Iran were our two biggest threats the day after 9/11, and we have unsuccessfully dealt with them both while managing to destabilize Iraq and spread our troops too thin to adequately respond to any new threats.

That all said, my gut instinct tends to agree with President Shithead on this one. Bush has managed to bungle everything he's touched, and there is no reason to trust that his proposed surge will work. As some of the posters have mentioned, the terrorists know all they have to do is wait us out. It doesn't matter if its 6 months, 1 year, 5 years, 10 years. They fucking live there! And America does not have the will to have a permanent combat operation running indefinitely in that country.

But I think this surge deserves at least a chance to work. Look at it this way: if it manages to light a fire under the Iraqi govt to get its act together, then its accomplished its mission. And if it doesn't work, we are no worse off than before, since ultimately Iraq would've ultimately collapsed into a total state of civil war.

The chances that Bush will miraculously salvage this war are slim. I seriously doubt the mini-surge will provide enough time for Iraqi forces stand up for themselves when they haven't been able to for 2 years... But the consequences are too high not to give it one last desperate attempt to work. So I hope Congress lays off, gives the money up for this surge, and then if it fails... shuts this war down faster than a rat infested Taco Bell.

It just tears me apart that we shouldve never been in this situation to begin with, and now we are left mopping up what has been the greatest fuckup in American history.

[boutons_]

"a chance to work."

It's just a little more of the same shit from the same people in the same situation we've had for 4 years. Why expect DIFFERENT results?

The Iraqi govt knows it operates in the Green Zone under the protection of the US military. Those govt individuals know they each personally will be at much greater risk, ie, like the average Iraqi, when the US pulls out. No matter what those Iraqi officials say, there is NO MOTIVATION, even if they had the competence, to develop a strong govt capable of running the country and providing security.

The Repugs have lost Iraq. Get out sooner, rather than later.

Iraq can't be stabilized. The US's main job after withdrawal will be containing that Iraqi shit within Iraq (ie, like Saddam was contained in Feb 2003).

[ggoose25]

i guess im an optimist. my head completely agrees with you boutons. there is no reason to have hope with this administration. I don't want anymore of our boys and girls killed in a war that only exacerbated terrorism and weakened America.

but my heart and my gut want to give it one more try. i know it will cost american lives. I know they are not my lives to gamble with. I know its a long shot. but i cant honestly say, "there is no hope," without trying this surge. only after that can i say, "lets get the fuck out with the quickness."

[xrayzebra]

Well I can say one thing with certainity. Those that
opposed to Bush and the war have no earthly idea of
what they speak. But what is unusual about that?

My God, I have never in my life seen such ignorance.
Are you the products of our new educational system?

[ggoose25]

bush is a frat boy idiot product of your generation, not mine.

[xrayzebra]

Not my generation, he is too young. But I will say one thing for
Bush, he has tried to get along with the dimm-o-craps and they
have given him nothing but grief. Your perception of him is
obviously derived from the MSM and the dimms.

What have the dimms offered in return. Absolutely nothing.

I wished he had stood up to them and called them on their
obvious desire to see the US go down in defeat just to take
Bush down. Look at Ms. America, Pelosi, as Rush says the
new Jane Fonda over in the ME acting like she is the new
President of the United States.

Got to say one thing for her, her Bras were obviously designed
by the Jane Russell Hollywood crowd. She needs a police
escort to get those things around the corner.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Not my generation, he is too young. But I will say one thing for
Bush, he has tried to get along with the dimm-o-craps and they
have given him nothing but grief. Your perception of him is
obviously derived from the MSM and the dimms.

What have the dimms offered in return. Absolutely nothing.

I wished he had stood up to them and called them on their
obvious desire to see the US go down in defeat just to take
Bush down. Look at Ms. America, Pelosi, as Rush says the
new Jane Fonda over in the ME acting like she is the new
President of the United States.

Got to say one thing for her, her Bras were obviously designed
by the Jane Russell Hollywood crowd. She needs a police
escort to get those things around the corner.


Hey Ray I hate to break it to you but Bush's own political advisor just came out and said that Bush purposely went out of his way to not get along with Dems. I can produce a link if you'd like. Not only that his political strategy was to govern for 51%. Yes ray your boy bushdid nothing but look for a fight. Well he's got a fight now and the American people are behind his opponent. I noticed you stayed away from the Ex-Aide turns against your boy Bush.. don't blame you.

[ggoose25]

bush is antithesis to bipartisanship. for six years he's been spoiled by a republican rubber stamp, and now that its finally over we are supposed to feel sorry for him? fuck bush. and fuck rush. that old blowhole sonofabitch is the biggest hypocrite sorry sack of buffalo shit on the radio.

[xrayzebra]

Hey Ray I hate to break it to you but Bush's own political advisor just came out and said that Bush purposely went out of his way to not get along with Dems. I can produce a link if you'd like. Not only that his political strategy was to govern for 51%. Yes ray your boy bushdid nothing but look for a fight. Well he's got a fight now and the American people are behind his opponent. I noticed you stayed away from the Ex-Aide turns against your boy Bush.. don't blame you.


Nope I didn't stay away. Go back and read. As far as
a link, I don't need anyone to tell me what he did or
didn't do. I have been reading and listening for the
past years what he, Bush, has done and said and what
the dimm-o-craps have done and said. Maybe you
need guidance, but I don't.

[xrayzebra]

bush is antithesis to bipartisanship. for six years he's been spoiled by a republican rubber stamp, and now that its finally over we are supposed to feel sorry for him? fuck bush. and fuck rush. that old blowhole sonofabitch is the biggest hypocrite sorry sack of buffalo shit on the radio.

Yeah, and how much did you make in the last year. Rush,
has had about 19 million listeners each and every day and
makes frequent trips to the bank. And you want to call
yourself an expert. :lol

You keep talking and he will keep talking and getting
more rich doing it............. :smokin

[PixelPusher]

Yeah, and how much did you make in the last year. Rush,
has had about 19 million listeners each and every day and
makes frequent trips to the bank. And you want to call
yourself an expert. :lol

You keep talking and he will keep talking and getting
more rich doing it............. :smokin
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public"

[ChumpDumper]

Well I can say one thing with certainity. Those that
opposed to Bush and the war have no earthly idea of
what they speak. But what is unusual about that?

My God, I have never in my life seen such ignorance.
Are you the products of our new educational system?Explain to us what you think we don't know. You can't just say that about everything that has been written without some specifics.