Oh noes! Another literary masterpiece!

[W3MIV]

Supporting docouments, s'il vous plait. My info comes from someone who was there on the day in question and he's reported publicly that there never was any attack. But....it was credible enough for LBJ to get his resolution. I've already provided the reference for that multiple times.

That is certainly true for the Turner Joy. There was no attack on that destroyer, though one was erroneously reported. The Maddox was approached closely be NVN boats that the CO of the Maddox determined were making an attack.

Ibid. and Ibid. In the same source I've been mentioning for years, the info comes from an interview with RFK. If need be I'll get another copy of the document I read this in and post exact quotes. The copy I had I passed on because it should be required reading in high school civics class.

As I pointed out, much of the truth was altered after JFK's assassination. Bobby had a vested interest in changing history to suit his own political goals, as well as fostering a new heroic legend about his brother. For the record, I greatly loved and admired JFK, but I greatly love and admire truth the more. Never forget, it was Kennedy who expanded the contingent of "advisors" Ike had dispatched to VN. And, it was Kennedy who accepted and fostered the CIA's Bay of Pigs operations, only to get cold feet once the poor bastards were ashore and getting cut to ribbons.

Look into both Bobby and Jack's records during the fifties; both were staunch "anti-commie" cold warriors; both strong supporters of Joe McCarthy. Neither ever made a single, critical comment about their buddy "Tail-gunner Joe," even after his fall from grace.

[W1GUH]

That is certainly true for the Turner Joy. There was no attack on that destroyer, though one was erroneously reported.

And that's the incident the begat the Gulf of Tonkin resolutions. Just imagine how many lives could have been saved if Congress knew what we know now?

Look into both Bobby and Jack's records during the fifties; both were staunch "anti-commie" cold warriors; both strong supporters of Joe McCarthy. Neither ever made a single, critical comment about their buddy "Tail-gunner Joe," even after his fall from grace.

I don't doubt that a bit. But it appears that JFK's attitudes were moderated once he reached the Oval Office. IIRC, Dr. Ellsberg's memoirs expressed a strong impression that both JFK and RFK knew that Vietnam could become a quagmire and neither had intentions of doing what LBJ did. Of coures, this is all speculation. Dr. Ellsberg's information involves a personal conversation with RFK after the assasination.

There's some evidence of JFK's moderation towards Moscow (ok - you said commie. I'm equating Moscow in the 60's with commies.)

JFK really, reallly pissed off a bunch of people when he proposed a joint USA-USSR space program...

From 'Wiki

Meanwhile, the Soviet government was showing ambivalence about human visits to the Moon. Premier Khrushchev wanted neither "defeat" by another power, nor the expense of such a project. In October 1963 he characterized the Soviet Union as "not at present planning flight by cosmonauts to the Moon"[citation needed], while adding that they had not dropped out of the race.

Kennedy proposed joint programs, such as a Moon landing by U.S. and Soviet astronauts and improved weather-monitoring satellites. Khrushchev rejected these ideas, saying he sensed an attempt to steal Russian space technology.

Link

The only connection with the subject at hand is JFK's attitude towards Moscow. That tidbit about joint programs I learned from another source, and I believe I've got scans of documents supporting the Wiki article. I'll post 'em when I can.

Re: Bay of Pigs -- rings a bell my don't have any specifics right now.

[W1GUH]

On thinking it over, I have to offer apologies for going off on a tangent. Yes, I, too, sometimes jerk my knee. Lo Siento Mucho!

As the exchange unfolded, and I was able to step back and reflect, I realize there isn't any disagreement. We were discussing leaves on individual trees, and not the forest itself.

The kernal of truth about the Gulf of Tonkin is that it was all based on a whopper of a lie. Wonder which lie was bigger; that one, or WMD's? No matter, really, just know that there is documented proof that the government can and will lie through their teeth to the electorate to justify anything, including mass murder.

Far more relevant is the question of whether or not we can actually elect someone of the caliber of FDR, HST, JFK, or LBJ (but minus his big goof of Vietnam*)?

I say, not for a very, very long time.

Thanks for the words, Albi, I always learn so much from you.


*Of course, whether or not it was a goof is open for discussion.

[W3MIV]

Oh, LBJ's "goof" in VN was a "goof-nonpareil," so to say. But to put it out of the context of the "goofs" of every other president from Truman forward, not excluding a single one of them, is to misunderstand how badly we have managed our international affairs over these three score plus years.

I thought about researching and finding the number of Americans killed in these useless overt and clandestine actions from Greece through the end of last month (66 in A'stan, not sure of elsewhere), but the thought is too depressing to take to deed.

At least, the supplemental appropriation of sixty billions of dollars to continue the killing in A'stan had opposition from 102 Democrats, my own included (only 12 Republicans stood up, however). At least that is progress, of sorts. If nothing else, it may be a start.

We need to return to the firm Constitutional mandate of a "declaration of war" by the Congress. It is a pusillanimous abdication of authority for Congress to permit a president -- any president -- to go to war without the proper and legal mandate required by the US Constitution. I have never doubted that the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces needs the flexibility to respond to an attack -- but Constitutional war powers were never anticipated to encompass offensive action without Congressional authority. And Congressional authority for war is not some craven "war powers agreement" designed to offer cover to poltroons.

[W1GUH]

Craven
Poltroons!!!

(Two separate links.)

You're a great source of great words. I am indebted!