Letters to the Editor
bucky1
Published Letters: 1714
-
re: Leftwing Delusion From A Leftwing Pose
[Read the article: Sen. Reid's crime]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... There go those short declarative sentences Karen M warned about! Insulting people you know nothing about doesn’t make those decalarative sentences any more epistemologically sound.
After the things you have said, you call "yahoo" insulting people? You are inscrutable. Besides, Karen is also wrong, or Papa Hemingway did not know how to write. (or like cats with five toes, or drink)
The are plenty of historians that are yahoos, and you found one. You have found one, if he really represents what you have been saying in post after post (in short declarative sentences, no less) that LBJ was a poor victim of some "neo-McCarthyism" of the GOP that "forced" him into a murderous war.
As we all know, Vietnam is one of the most written about affairs in our history. It is the defining event for my generation, and my life spent in book stores tells me that they keep so many Vietnam books out due to interest (sales) in the subject, and not public service. Thousands and thousands of books --- and you have one guy who thinks LBJ was a "tragic figure". Poppycock.
Finally, I'd like to point out that even if I were making the simplistic sort of argument that Bucky1 accuses me of, this would hardly mean that I would be presenting LBJ as such a unique and monstrous figure. The fog of war is not limited to the battlefield.
It is the formulation that you always use in short declarative sentences that says, "this is truth"; and brooks no mention of the main cause we all (ahem, the rest of us) see.
The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara must not be what you mean by "fog of war" since McNamara did not seem to know about the new McCarthyism. I wonder why?
We do know that LBJ used the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" to his own full advantage to lie us into war. We know that he kept us there, and so hundreds of thousands were killed or injured after we knew the thing was hopeless.
I never said the causes were simple. But complex causes can still come down to a choke-point, where decisions hang on relatively simple choices, dominated by relatively simple concerns. Such apparently happened with LBJ and Vietnam. Until you have read the book, and can present a better explanation, you’are in no position to slander Mann.
I did not slander Mann, I went after you. Stop hiding behind some historian. You are appealing to authority on this one, and you are wrong.
You have been claiming for some time that LBJ is innocent because the evil GOP forced him into war (the escalation) because of neo-McCarthyism. You are trying to rehabilitate Johnson, Soviet style, and return him to the Pantheon of Democratic Party heroes. This is simply not going to work.
You can talk "choke points" when cornered, but even that phrase will not rescue your argument. Almost all "regular" Americans did not even know where the damned place was located, and damn few cared about the doctrine of "Containment". LBJ sold the war like a time-share outfit sells bad deals to rubes.
Further, it is plain as day that LBJ was even a worse murderer than we thought if the main reason he ordered such vast destruction was simply to win reelection for the Democratic Party. Both Parties have been trying to paint myths about the war ever since the fall of Saigon; you will not succeed. Far too many people involved at all levels have written on the subject.
Besides --- you will never sell LBJ as a coward afraid of mean old GOP neo-McCarthyites. Bejeebus, the Dems controlled all of government then and he was much too imposing of a figure for that to work.
-
Kitt goes for slander in a misquote
[Read the article: Sen. Reid's crime]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Kitt:
You claimed who your candidate for president was and then you went on to say something on the order of this: "I haven't read any of you put forth who you are in favor of for president. I guess you are waiting for Glenn to tell you who should be president. That's sad"
What an asshole. You lost every bit of any credibility you might have had with me when you made that total crap remark.
You are simply wrong. I wrote that if that were the case, it would be sad. I still think that if anyone is waiting for a pundit (say, Limbaugh) to declare support first; then that is sad.
As for "any credibility" you went that route before. Since you can not read very well, I'll not consider it much of a loss.
-
re: Remember what Bucky1 is selling...
[Read the article: Sen. Reid's crime]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I see the coward who "went on vacation" is still lying.
I agree with all of the "youth" that Paul is a breath of fresh air. But, I sell no man. They will all disapoint you in the end.
Besides, Mr. Coward, I am on record as saying he has no chance to win the nomination. You read that in our last dust-up, and now you lie.