Letters to the Editor
bucky1
Published Letters: 1714
-
Paul lies again
[Read the article: Richard Cohen's brilliant (and unintentional) exposé of our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"... My big beef with him came when I pointed out that LBJ got us involved in Vietnam against his will, citing A Grand Delusion: America's Descent Into Vietnam by Robert Mann--the only book I know so far that looks at Vietnam through the lens of Senate history ... "
I see I am arguing with both a fool and a liar.
You claimed that LBJ went to war against his will (dubious at best) and that it was the GOP and neo-McCarthyism that led the carnage.
I claim that is codswallop; and further that even if the claim were true it would make LBJ a worse monster than most know. He would have killed 3 million Vietnamese and 10s of thousands of Americans to stay in power domestically. You called names, swore, aggressively misread my words, and all the rest I have come to expect from such as you.
Then you play the innocent --- oh boy, you are laying up karma.
More lies: Also, if you check out Bucky1's comment, AND the link he provides, you'll see he gets two other things wrong as well: it's not about "a new documentary on LBJ," but a scholarly paper, and it's not "From the far left," but from Francis Bator, LBJ's Deputy National Security Adviser.
The boys at http://www.samefacts.com will be startled to learn that they are not leftists. I wonder what their motto could mean?
I was referring to the fact that even the favorable paper on LBJ (I read all sides unlike some here) does not let him off because the GOP and "neo-McCarthyism" forced him into war. Hell, the paper stats off with a former aid practically calling him a dunce on foreign affairs.
And this is your pick for greatest president? (or was it William who wrote that?)
I sum it up as Democrats trying to rehabilitate LBJ just as Republicans will do Bush someday.
... And so—to avoid a Vietnam versus Great Society debate that might destroy his social and civil rights legislation—Johnson (shutting Bundy up) signed off on Westmoreland’s minimum numbers, but sidled into war with minimum fuss: no prime-time speech, no new resolution, no call-up of reserves, no tax increase, no drumming up of support. Announce at noon: “No change in policy.” ...
That is the work of a monster. Your favorite president led us into the nightmare so he could pas some legislation without having to have a debate! My God.
-
no conclusive two-sentence slogan
[Read the article: What "truly motivates" George W. Bush?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, Glenn.
You nailed that one; there will never be a two sentence slogan to tell us what drove Bush, any more than we have a (truthful) two sentence slogan to tell us what drove Nixon.
The question in my mind is whether this county should be so dependent upon the nature of one man; or even a few characters surrounding this one man. We do not even really know if the man was a monster when he entered office or if the vast power of the office drove him to the hubris and evil that we see today. Have the two parties over generations finally invested so much power in the office that only a few can resist the temptation to enforce their own will on others? (even if 'for their own good')
The Limbaugh types are going to tell the Republican base that Bush is not 'really' a conservative and we need to elect a real conservative next time since the power of the office would lead to hell on earth if Clinton wins. (or any other 'liberal')
Perhaps we all need to ask if we still believe that great power will corrupt even the 'good' men and women. If so, we need to reduce the power of the presidency and restore the balance the founders were looking to fix in our style of government. Unfortunately, that may no longer be possible.
-
re: on democracy
[Read the article: "Fringe liberal bloggers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Healthyskeptic, democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner. ;-)
...If people can't deal with compromise, imperfect solutions, incrementalism, and centrist majority rule, then they're fundamentally NOT getting how democracy works, or very bright for that matter.
I wager that you will not be able to sell that line to the group here.
Carry on ...
-
re: Yup, it's a troll
[Read the article: "Fringe liberal bloggers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Interesting how quickly these reasonable moderates devolve into name calling when faced with a little disagreement.
Yep, it is truly amazing how they come here, make a comment, and get three tons of shit and slander hurled their way and then for no fucking reason; they get all cuss-e-fied.
Do you read the threads in backwards order? That would explain your comment, you know.
-
re: Why?
[Read the article: "Fringe liberal bloggers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"any ammo we give the right will lose moderates."
Why? Honest question.
Robert, is it not obvious?
There is a war for the "hearts and minds" of the normal working Americans who are not into politics as you are. They often make up their mind late in an election cycle. They infuriate political strategists in both parties. Anything you do to help your opponent win these people hurts your side.
I personally think it is better to lose than sell out principles, but he is just telling you old time political wisdom.