It was on Eisenhower's watch that the US started funding (to tune of 80% I've read!) France's doomed effort to conquer the indomitable people of Viet Nam. Thus it was JFK who started direct US combat troop involvement in VN, not LBJ. I absolutely reject the myth perpetuated by Kennedy's admirers that he planned to end US involvement in SE Asia after being re-elected in 1964. In my view, JFK was no less a war hawk/Cold Warrior than his predecessors or successors. He foolishly signed off on the scheme prepped by Nixon--again, thank Ike!--to send anti-Castro Cubans on a catastrophic mission to "re-take" Cuba for the benefit of US Big Business and the Mafia. Some hero, that JFK! :-(
Greg: we've seen how revisionist History Martyred JFK for the Ages mostly due to his giving his life for his country, but you're absolutely right... The "Bay of Pigs" was a Fiasco. Also JFK & Sam Giancana the Godfather of the Chicago outfit of the Mafia had the same GF at the time "Judith Exner". Chicago a powerfully strong branch of organized crime originally headed by Al Capone. I think also Giancana with his connections may have, and its become conventional wisdom too had worked to get Kennedy elected president.
If I'm not mistaken, the Giancana outfit was principal controller of dope, gambling and prostitution in Cuba before the Revolution. And those guys never forgave Kennedy for not sending US troops to try to rescue the exile fighters and push into interior to "take out" Fidel. 600+ attempts on his life by CIA couldn't remove Fidel from the headcount! :-)
We can’t lose our obsession with the ‘evil other’, and the fear propaganda that drives it. And drivers of our war economy demand that it always be thus.
A thought experiment to support the arguments made in Bill's post.
For any of the Presidents over the last 60 years (or longer), replace the 'winner' of the presidential election with the 'loser'. How much difference would there have been? (And that difference does not have to be better - looking at you, John McCain).
Thinking back, the only possible change I see might have been if GHW Bush had beaten 'Slick Willie' Clinton in 1992. He might have slowed or stopped NATO's expansion eastward. But even then, I'm not sure if he would have been allowed to have any say.
Whoa, hold the phone!! Why on earth would George Herbert Walker Bush, who headed the CIA for a year after Carter's failed re-election bid, and whose family had married into a bona fide Ruling Class clan (Klan?), go rogue and oppose US/NATO expansionism in Eastern Europe??
The only reason I suggested that was his administration had committed to.Gorbachev and Shevardnadze that NATO would not advance east - it was part of the agreement on unifying Germany.
Ah-hah, yes, it was precisely on GHWB's watch that the Big Lie was laid on the Russkies and they fell for it!! I guess they were too distracted by internal strife, what with Boris "Boom-Boom" Yeltsin on the scene, to pay closer attention to foreign affairs. Yeltsin who would eventually order the artillery shelling of the parliamentary building. :-(
Another interesting 'lost history' of the 1992 campaign (think I read it on Robert Parry's Consortium News). The Republicans knew Clinton was going to be tough so they made a deal - if Clinton sat out 92; the R's would give him a free pass in 96. He agreed, then went back on it - and that's when the R's went after Clinton with Ken Starr and all the rest of it. They're all slime balls.
Huh! That's a new one on me. Clinton defeated GHWB in '92 of course, and Robert "Mr. Excitement" Dole (dull) next go-round. I think 'Big Dog' Clinton--a fellow of big appetites, as they say--was certainly not as wretched a POTUS as the crew that came in his wake.
If there are people who know anything about the horrible cost of war, and how tragic war really is - it is those professionals who have studied war for most of their lives, and been on the front lines themselves.
They say when you have to choose a general to lead your army, choose the general who does not want to go to war, because he will be the one who will win it. He understands the real human cost of war, and what it will take to win.
Omar Bradley was called "the GI's general" by the grunts of WW II. He and Eisenhower had the best view of the overall situation on the ground in that war and I believe sincerely wished to minimize US casualties. Contrast this with Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who reportedly wanted to nuke China soon after its revolution. Or George S. Patton, who saw war as the route to personal glory for himself. Dandy irony: all three of those latter figures led active duty troops to attack the WW I "Bonus Marchers" in the Nation's Capital in c. 1932! I think that was the straw that broke Smedley Butler's back and woke him up. That and his having been asked by a cabal of Big Business chaps to rally veterans to overthrow FDR and his dastardly--from their viewpoint--"New Deal"!! Are today's young people taught any of this in school?? I doubt it. :-(
I highly doubt it Greg...! :/ :O) "Patton" "Our Blood his Guts" There goes Old blood & guts!! Douglas MacArthur one of our last 5*****Star Generals too...! That Corn Cob Pipe.
Speaking of Ol' Blood & Guts, I deem "Patton" one of the greatest American war movies ever made. Screenplay by Francis Ford Coppola, directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, released 1970. Note that I did not call it "anti-" or "pro-war." Just a tremendous war movie.
Re LBJ: he'd escalated in Vietnam long before the '64 election. Within a few days of Kennedy's assassination, he'd already signed the order to increase the U.S. presence, an order JFK had refused to sign. By the next year, his actions were noticeably betraying his words.
As for the current Occupant, anyone who believed anything he said in 2024 was willfully ignorant. The very fact that he said "no new wars" pretty much guaranteed he'd get the country into a war.
Precisely. In TrumpWorld--and god help us, we ARE living in his world now--words mean just the opposite of what they used to, or should. It's a Lewis Carroll world, but not in the least amusing. "War IS Peace," etc.
Again, on subject of JFK: in the "Cuban Missile Crisis"--which was really the US asserting the Monroe Doctrine--Kennedy looked over the edge of the abyss of nuclear annihilation and reacted like a SANE HUMAN BEING. Leading to the negotiations that cooled things down. I'll give him that much, in contrast to the thing currently holding the presidency. Does this make him a secular saint, a Great American Icon?? I think not. Decidedly not.
I’m engaging in largely unsubstantiated, amateur historical revisionism here, but I want to cut Johnson some slack, and to illustrate that the matter may have been more intricate and complex but no less sinister than he is blamed for. The thesis is this:
Johnson was a domestic policy president, he wanted to be another FDR, only greater. Foreign policy wasn’t a focus of his. He inherited Vietnam, possibly with some knowledge that Kennedy wanted out, but that’s not certain, given how he was mostly left of the loop.
So he suddenly assumes the presidency. What’s he to do? He’s in no position to adopt a whole new agenda, at least early on, indeed I believe he even stated in his first address before Congress after the assassination that his duty was to carry on the legacy of Kennedy, how could he not?
But he began work immediately on the host of social welfare legislation comprising what he announced in his first State of the Union address on January 4, 1965 as “The Great Society.” This was his dream.
Astute politician that he was, he could also see that Vietnam was posing a threat to his lifetime aspiration. Consistent with his political experience, he was hoping he could “cut a deal” with Ho Chi Minh, reconstruction and other aid for an end to the war. But this was a different war for America, not amenable to deal cutting other than getting out where we, and the French before us, didn’t belong.
That avenue shut off, Johnson was becoming desperate for a way out. He consulted the “Wise Men” of American foreign policy from WWII and the post-war period, other advisors. Some said get out. Most said, until too late, to show resolve. What was he to do? If get out, he’d risk savage attack from the Right, and the end of his Great Society. Up the ante, and maybe enough North Vietnamese would be killed that they’d capitulate, after all, we were dropping more bombs there than in all of WWII. Either way he was at great risk. Opted for the latter, which he tried to ameliorate with the lies, deceptions, and falsehoods to paint a picture that victory could be achieved.
So the argument isn’t that it was Johnson alone. There was a whole apparatus – approximated by what we now call the MICIMATT-SH, but more than that – that was responsible for Vietnam. Johnson was also a casualty of it.
There are massive biographies on LBJ. I don't shy from tackling tomes, but haven't gotten around to dealing with that guy. But I know a thing or two about him. In his Texas political career, black folk called him "Lynchin' Baines Johnson." Lenny Bruce did a great routine depicting Johnson learning how to say "Negro. Neee-gro" in place of the language he grew up using. LBJ is said to have been a great negotiator, a great arm-twister behind the scenes, a power broker, which bolstered his ego. We may be sure he was dragged kicking and screaming into that voting rights legislation--which is being shredded daily as we watch in disgust--by fear of a genuine nationwide uprising of racial minorities. Cut a deal with Ho Chi Minh? The only honorable thing the US could have done would be to admit its aggression was utterly unjustified, withdraw very quickly and completely, and pay reparations for its terrible war crimes. Well, that ain't about to happen on any POTUS's watch! I have to admit, though, it was a remarkable aberration that Trump ordered cessation of the insane 20-year attempt to conquer rugged Afghanistan. And of course pilloried the way that was actually executed on Biden's watch.
Robert Caro's multi-volume biography of LBJ runs to what, 5,000 pages? One helluva bucket list item, but THE authoritative work on him. Caro says of his work, not only covering LBJ but also Robert Moses, “What I am trying to do is to show not only how power works but the effect of power on the powerless: How political power affects our lives, every single day, in ways we never think about.”
Well short of Caro's opus on LBJ, but still quite good, is the two-part "American Experience" program "LBJ" as part of its "Presidents" series. I seem to recall it including this quote of his: “I do understand power, whatever else may be said about me. I know where to look for it, and how to use it.”
Power. That's what it's all about. A line from Gore Vidal's "The Best Man" is relevant here: "Power is not a toy we give to good children; it is a weapon and the strong man takes it and he uses it." In his use of power LBJ could be crass, vindictive, mean-spirited, petty, headstrong. He could also be gracious, compassionate, magnanimous, and noble. A very contradictory and complicated figure.
Despite his understanding of power, despite any president's understanding of power, who among them would have had the moral and political courage to take down the flag, fold up the tent, and go home? It's been speculated that thoughts like are what got Kennedy killed. What would such a president's legacy, moral hero or betrayer of "the leader of the free world"? Nixon knew he had to get out, but know the "moral" route would get him nowhere, so the "peace with honor" ruse had to play out, and how many lives were lost and ruined over how many years before that came about? Maybe RFK could have pulled it off, which would have signaled a major shift in America's engagement with the world, but that opportunity was also lost to the nation, the world.
The point in all this being that the exercise of power even by those most deft in it is not always absolute, forces exist beyond them that can crush them.
I've read the Caro volume that focuses on the election of 1960 to the death of JFK and LBJ's assumption of power. Really well done.
Yes, isn't it amazing--and lamentable--that a moral argument to end an immoral war just isn't compelling enough? That other "harder" reasons must be invented like "peace with honor"? Wars--so easy for the U.S. to get into--so difficult to get out of.
Thus we're in a state of continual war and always making preparations for the same. And we always say it's to keep America great and safe when nothing is making us punier and unsafe than war.
What passes for leadership in the rest of the "developed world" lacks the intestinal fortitude to launch a global boycott of US goods and services--and military cooperation--until some sanity is restored here. Tsk, tsk, can't go interfering with the flow of profits, now can we? :-(
A friend has a massive tome (redundant terms?) on LBJ in his bookcase. I never yanked it out of there to see just how many pages it has. But 5000 pages on Johnson? Too much for me! I have read the unexpurgated classic Gibbon work on the Roman Empire and Mark Twain's "autobiography," each exceeding 3000 pages. But no, 5000 is a bit too much. But thanks for the info.
You're a better man than I in going the literary distance. Being a painfully slow reader, I groan at anything beyond 275 pages. I cannot fathom Caro's virtually lifelong undertaking in describing the life of LBJ. His theme of showing how political power affects our lives is a vital one, and he writes well. I'll see if I can strike a bargain with God - I promise to go through all the LBJ volumes if you don't take me 'til then.
Bill, why do you suppose that is? Some of them probably really wanted to have peace not war (or am I naive?). Do they just get overcome by the "powers that be"? Are they required to have testosterone shots when they reside in the White House? Or were they just all lying from the get go?
Great question. Perhaps the real "president" is the national security state, the MICC, and almost every president learns that obeying the dictates of that state (now augmented in some cases by Zionist Israel) is the easiest path to follow.
We need more profiles in courage, where courage is measured by a resolute commitment for peace and against war.
The last POTUS who had SOME courage was probably none other than Jimmy Carter, the much-maligned Baptist deacon. He told the nation we would all need to make some sacrifices to get thru the second Arab oil boycott and climbing cost of living. (Of course, "some" of us were raking in profits hand over fist.) And he had photovoltaic electricity-generating panels placed atop the White House! Imagine that! I believe he was completely sincere in his efforts to tamp down conflict in the Middle East, but the Palestinians' suffering just escalated with each ensuing decade. Just look where things are at now. And after leaving office, Carter spoke openly in opposition to Israeli aggression. What a sorry collection of CRAVEN COWARDS the great majority of US Presidents have been!!
Hello Bill Astore ... Don't forget that the USA has been an Expansionist Empire from its Beginnings in the 17th Century.... It has Global Interests that like Smedley Butler said, must be defended....
Yes -- the "Manifest Destiny" was always to expand, no matter the cost. It was often given a missionary gloss of spreading the Gospel to the heathen, though the "heathen" didn't see being killed, raped, and otherwise abused as "good news" for them.
As I mentioned here some time back, Saint Augustine wrote that killing is just fine and dandy--not murder, heavens no!--IF ORDERED BY GOD. One of the sicker statements that could be posited in the realm of ethics/morality.
. . . requiring that we peace-loving war-hating citizens unite to replace the war pigs now driving our violent, predatory, perpetual war policies . . .
It was on Eisenhower's watch that the US started funding (to tune of 80% I've read!) France's doomed effort to conquer the indomitable people of Viet Nam. Thus it was JFK who started direct US combat troop involvement in VN, not LBJ. I absolutely reject the myth perpetuated by Kennedy's admirers that he planned to end US involvement in SE Asia after being re-elected in 1964. In my view, JFK was no less a war hawk/Cold Warrior than his predecessors or successors. He foolishly signed off on the scheme prepped by Nixon--again, thank Ike!--to send anti-Castro Cubans on a catastrophic mission to "re-take" Cuba for the benefit of US Big Business and the Mafia. Some hero, that JFK! :-(
Greg: we've seen how revisionist History Martyred JFK for the Ages mostly due to his giving his life for his country, but you're absolutely right... The "Bay of Pigs" was a Fiasco. Also JFK & Sam Giancana the Godfather of the Chicago outfit of the Mafia had the same GF at the time "Judith Exner". Chicago a powerfully strong branch of organized crime originally headed by Al Capone. I think also Giancana with his connections may have, and its become conventional wisdom too had worked to get Kennedy elected president.
If I'm not mistaken, the Giancana outfit was principal controller of dope, gambling and prostitution in Cuba before the Revolution. And those guys never forgave Kennedy for not sending US troops to try to rescue the exile fighters and push into interior to "take out" Fidel. 600+ attempts on his life by CIA couldn't remove Fidel from the headcount! :-)
We can’t lose our obsession with the ‘evil other’, and the fear propaganda that drives it. And drivers of our war economy demand that it always be thus.
A thought experiment to support the arguments made in Bill's post.
For any of the Presidents over the last 60 years (or longer), replace the 'winner' of the presidential election with the 'loser'. How much difference would there have been? (And that difference does not have to be better - looking at you, John McCain).
Thinking back, the only possible change I see might have been if GHW Bush had beaten 'Slick Willie' Clinton in 1992. He might have slowed or stopped NATO's expansion eastward. But even then, I'm not sure if he would have been allowed to have any say.
Whoa, hold the phone!! Why on earth would George Herbert Walker Bush, who headed the CIA for a year after Carter's failed re-election bid, and whose family had married into a bona fide Ruling Class clan (Klan?), go rogue and oppose US/NATO expansionism in Eastern Europe??
The only reason I suggested that was his administration had committed to.Gorbachev and Shevardnadze that NATO would not advance east - it was part of the agreement on unifying Germany.
Ah-hah, yes, it was precisely on GHWB's watch that the Big Lie was laid on the Russkies and they fell for it!! I guess they were too distracted by internal strife, what with Boris "Boom-Boom" Yeltsin on the scene, to pay closer attention to foreign affairs. Yeltsin who would eventually order the artillery shelling of the parliamentary building. :-(
Another interesting 'lost history' of the 1992 campaign (think I read it on Robert Parry's Consortium News). The Republicans knew Clinton was going to be tough so they made a deal - if Clinton sat out 92; the R's would give him a free pass in 96. He agreed, then went back on it - and that's when the R's went after Clinton with Ken Starr and all the rest of it. They're all slime balls.
Huh! That's a new one on me. Clinton defeated GHWB in '92 of course, and Robert "Mr. Excitement" Dole (dull) next go-round. I think 'Big Dog' Clinton--a fellow of big appetites, as they say--was certainly not as wretched a POTUS as the crew that came in his wake.
If there are people who know anything about the horrible cost of war, and how tragic war really is - it is those professionals who have studied war for most of their lives, and been on the front lines themselves.
They say when you have to choose a general to lead your army, choose the general who does not want to go to war, because he will be the one who will win it. He understands the real human cost of war, and what it will take to win.
Omar Bradley was called "the GI's general" by the grunts of WW II. He and Eisenhower had the best view of the overall situation on the ground in that war and I believe sincerely wished to minimize US casualties. Contrast this with Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who reportedly wanted to nuke China soon after its revolution. Or George S. Patton, who saw war as the route to personal glory for himself. Dandy irony: all three of those latter figures led active duty troops to attack the WW I "Bonus Marchers" in the Nation's Capital in c. 1932! I think that was the straw that broke Smedley Butler's back and woke him up. That and his having been asked by a cabal of Big Business chaps to rally veterans to overthrow FDR and his dastardly--from their viewpoint--"New Deal"!! Are today's young people taught any of this in school?? I doubt it. :-(
I highly doubt it Greg...! :/ :O) "Patton" "Our Blood his Guts" There goes Old blood & guts!! Douglas MacArthur one of our last 5*****Star Generals too...! That Corn Cob Pipe.
Speaking of Ol' Blood & Guts, I deem "Patton" one of the greatest American war movies ever made. Screenplay by Francis Ford Coppola, directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, released 1970. Note that I did not call it "anti-" or "pro-war." Just a tremendous war movie.
I concur!!! Starring as Archie Bunker used to say back in the day lol "General George C. Scott."
Re LBJ: he'd escalated in Vietnam long before the '64 election. Within a few days of Kennedy's assassination, he'd already signed the order to increase the U.S. presence, an order JFK had refused to sign. By the next year, his actions were noticeably betraying his words.
As for the current Occupant, anyone who believed anything he said in 2024 was willfully ignorant. The very fact that he said "no new wars" pretty much guaranteed he'd get the country into a war.
Precisely. In TrumpWorld--and god help us, we ARE living in his world now--words mean just the opposite of what they used to, or should. It's a Lewis Carroll world, but not in the least amusing. "War IS Peace," etc.
Hmm, maybe not every president gives in. Didn't JFK say no when the MIC wanted to invade Cuba? He tried to make peace with the Russians, too.
Well, we all know how those dreams ended. With a clear warning to all succeeding Presidents.
Again, on subject of JFK: in the "Cuban Missile Crisis"--which was really the US asserting the Monroe Doctrine--Kennedy looked over the edge of the abyss of nuclear annihilation and reacted like a SANE HUMAN BEING. Leading to the negotiations that cooled things down. I'll give him that much, in contrast to the thing currently holding the presidency. Does this make him a secular saint, a Great American Icon?? I think not. Decidedly not.
I’m engaging in largely unsubstantiated, amateur historical revisionism here, but I want to cut Johnson some slack, and to illustrate that the matter may have been more intricate and complex but no less sinister than he is blamed for. The thesis is this:
Johnson was a domestic policy president, he wanted to be another FDR, only greater. Foreign policy wasn’t a focus of his. He inherited Vietnam, possibly with some knowledge that Kennedy wanted out, but that’s not certain, given how he was mostly left of the loop.
So he suddenly assumes the presidency. What’s he to do? He’s in no position to adopt a whole new agenda, at least early on, indeed I believe he even stated in his first address before Congress after the assassination that his duty was to carry on the legacy of Kennedy, how could he not?
But he began work immediately on the host of social welfare legislation comprising what he announced in his first State of the Union address on January 4, 1965 as “The Great Society.” This was his dream.
Astute politician that he was, he could also see that Vietnam was posing a threat to his lifetime aspiration. Consistent with his political experience, he was hoping he could “cut a deal” with Ho Chi Minh, reconstruction and other aid for an end to the war. But this was a different war for America, not amenable to deal cutting other than getting out where we, and the French before us, didn’t belong.
That avenue shut off, Johnson was becoming desperate for a way out. He consulted the “Wise Men” of American foreign policy from WWII and the post-war period, other advisors. Some said get out. Most said, until too late, to show resolve. What was he to do? If get out, he’d risk savage attack from the Right, and the end of his Great Society. Up the ante, and maybe enough North Vietnamese would be killed that they’d capitulate, after all, we were dropping more bombs there than in all of WWII. Either way he was at great risk. Opted for the latter, which he tried to ameliorate with the lies, deceptions, and falsehoods to paint a picture that victory could be achieved.
So the argument isn’t that it was Johnson alone. There was a whole apparatus – approximated by what we now call the MICIMATT-SH, but more than that – that was responsible for Vietnam. Johnson was also a casualty of it.
Yes -- some truth here. But LBJ also embodied and exhibited macho BS and what we now call American exceptionalism.
You mean exceptionablism? (more accurate, don't you think?)
Oh, yeah, a lotta ingredients in that bitter broth...
Hello X K ... Don't forget that LBJ is from Texas...
True enough. As was, is, Dumbya...
There are massive biographies on LBJ. I don't shy from tackling tomes, but haven't gotten around to dealing with that guy. But I know a thing or two about him. In his Texas political career, black folk called him "Lynchin' Baines Johnson." Lenny Bruce did a great routine depicting Johnson learning how to say "Negro. Neee-gro" in place of the language he grew up using. LBJ is said to have been a great negotiator, a great arm-twister behind the scenes, a power broker, which bolstered his ego. We may be sure he was dragged kicking and screaming into that voting rights legislation--which is being shredded daily as we watch in disgust--by fear of a genuine nationwide uprising of racial minorities. Cut a deal with Ho Chi Minh? The only honorable thing the US could have done would be to admit its aggression was utterly unjustified, withdraw very quickly and completely, and pay reparations for its terrible war crimes. Well, that ain't about to happen on any POTUS's watch! I have to admit, though, it was a remarkable aberration that Trump ordered cessation of the insane 20-year attempt to conquer rugged Afghanistan. And of course pilloried the way that was actually executed on Biden's watch.
Robert Caro's multi-volume biography of LBJ runs to what, 5,000 pages? One helluva bucket list item, but THE authoritative work on him. Caro says of his work, not only covering LBJ but also Robert Moses, “What I am trying to do is to show not only how power works but the effect of power on the powerless: How political power affects our lives, every single day, in ways we never think about.”
Well short of Caro's opus on LBJ, but still quite good, is the two-part "American Experience" program "LBJ" as part of its "Presidents" series. I seem to recall it including this quote of his: “I do understand power, whatever else may be said about me. I know where to look for it, and how to use it.”
Power. That's what it's all about. A line from Gore Vidal's "The Best Man" is relevant here: "Power is not a toy we give to good children; it is a weapon and the strong man takes it and he uses it." In his use of power LBJ could be crass, vindictive, mean-spirited, petty, headstrong. He could also be gracious, compassionate, magnanimous, and noble. A very contradictory and complicated figure.
Despite his understanding of power, despite any president's understanding of power, who among them would have had the moral and political courage to take down the flag, fold up the tent, and go home? It's been speculated that thoughts like are what got Kennedy killed. What would such a president's legacy, moral hero or betrayer of "the leader of the free world"? Nixon knew he had to get out, but know the "moral" route would get him nowhere, so the "peace with honor" ruse had to play out, and how many lives were lost and ruined over how many years before that came about? Maybe RFK could have pulled it off, which would have signaled a major shift in America's engagement with the world, but that opportunity was also lost to the nation, the world.
The point in all this being that the exercise of power even by those most deft in it is not always absolute, forces exist beyond them that can crush them.
I've read the Caro volume that focuses on the election of 1960 to the death of JFK and LBJ's assumption of power. Really well done.
Yes, isn't it amazing--and lamentable--that a moral argument to end an immoral war just isn't compelling enough? That other "harder" reasons must be invented like "peace with honor"? Wars--so easy for the U.S. to get into--so difficult to get out of.
Thus we're in a state of continual war and always making preparations for the same. And we always say it's to keep America great and safe when nothing is making us punier and unsafe than war.
The theme music to "The Twilight Zone" should be embedded with this comment.
What passes for leadership in the rest of the "developed world" lacks the intestinal fortitude to launch a global boycott of US goods and services--and military cooperation--until some sanity is restored here. Tsk, tsk, can't go interfering with the flow of profits, now can we? :-(
A friend has a massive tome (redundant terms?) on LBJ in his bookcase. I never yanked it out of there to see just how many pages it has. But 5000 pages on Johnson? Too much for me! I have read the unexpurgated classic Gibbon work on the Roman Empire and Mark Twain's "autobiography," each exceeding 3000 pages. But no, 5000 is a bit too much. But thanks for the info.
You're a better man than I in going the literary distance. Being a painfully slow reader, I groan at anything beyond 275 pages. I cannot fathom Caro's virtually lifelong undertaking in describing the life of LBJ. His theme of showing how political power affects our lives is a vital one, and he writes well. I'll see if I can strike a bargain with God - I promise to go through all the LBJ volumes if you don't take me 'til then.
Do I detect an attempt at a "Faustian bargain"?? :-)
Yup, you do... and those never work out well, do they...?
Bill, why do you suppose that is? Some of them probably really wanted to have peace not war (or am I naive?). Do they just get overcome by the "powers that be"? Are they required to have testosterone shots when they reside in the White House? Or were they just all lying from the get go?
Great question. Perhaps the real "president" is the national security state, the MICC, and almost every president learns that obeying the dictates of that state (now augmented in some cases by Zionist Israel) is the easiest path to follow.
We need more profiles in courage, where courage is measured by a resolute commitment for peace and against war.
The last POTUS who had SOME courage was probably none other than Jimmy Carter, the much-maligned Baptist deacon. He told the nation we would all need to make some sacrifices to get thru the second Arab oil boycott and climbing cost of living. (Of course, "some" of us were raking in profits hand over fist.) And he had photovoltaic electricity-generating panels placed atop the White House! Imagine that! I believe he was completely sincere in his efforts to tamp down conflict in the Middle East, but the Palestinians' suffering just escalated with each ensuing decade. Just look where things are at now. And after leaving office, Carter spoke openly in opposition to Israeli aggression. What a sorry collection of CRAVEN COWARDS the great majority of US Presidents have been!!
Yup no "Profiles In Courage" there! Carter got the Wimp Label, but it was not justified at all...
Hello Bill Astore ... Don't forget that the USA has been an Expansionist Empire from its Beginnings in the 17th Century.... It has Global Interests that like Smedley Butler said, must be defended....
Yes -- the "Manifest Destiny" was always to expand, no matter the cost. It was often given a missionary gloss of spreading the Gospel to the heathen, though the "heathen" didn't see being killed, raped, and otherwise abused as "good news" for them.
Hello Bill Astore... The Worst Butchers of the Sand Creek Massacre were the Evangelical Volunteers because they were 'Divinely Ordained"...
As I mentioned here some time back, Saint Augustine wrote that killing is just fine and dandy--not murder, heavens no!--IF ORDERED BY GOD. One of the sicker statements that could be posited in the realm of ethics/morality.
"Religion poisons everything!"
Who was it that said "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?
I guess they think God was like Trump--always changing "His" mind.
It’s an old story . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KCEMP1IidM
. . . requiring that we peace-loving war-hating citizens unite to replace the war pigs now driving our violent, predatory, perpetual war policies . . .
https://warismakinguspoor.com/a-nation-at-peace/
Or we can sit back and watch the U.S. destroy itself.