On the matter of LBJ's willingness to enter the US into a higher degree of war against Vietnam, it depends on the context of the question.

In certain historical or biographical inquiries, that may be a very important matter.

From other perspectives, the personal and political viewpoint of LBJ on Vietnam does in fact matter far less than what happened on the ground as a result of US policymaker decisions. If the subject of inquiry is LBJ, it's highly relevant. If the subject is an inquiry as to the systematic patterns of, objectively measurable motivations, and effects of US foreign policy, then LBJ's personal / political motivations are of less interest.

This may have nothing (I hope it has nothing) to do with this latest debate with bucky1 or whomever, but, it's true for me.

"... 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.

The Swedish Academy defines characteristics of the Pinteresque:

Pinter restored theatre to its basic elements: an enclosed space and unpredictable dialogue, where people are at the mercy of each other and pretence crumbles. With a minimum of plot, drama emerges from the power struggle and hide-and-seek of interlocution. Pinter's drama was first perceived as a variation of absurd theatre, but has later more aptly been characterised as 'comedy of menace', a genre where the writer allows us to eavesdrop on the play of domination and submission hidden in the most mundane of conversations. In a typical Pinter play, we meet people defending themselves against intrusion or their own impulses by entrenching themselves in a reduced and controlled existence. Another principal theme is the volatility and elusiveness of the past.

But Arne my fellow, I did not bring it up again. You joined in the attack crew...

Stop being an eedjit (and a liar). You claimed the regulars here wouldn't know who they liked until Glenn brought the tablets down from the mount. Prior to that, I had said nothing to you (which seems perhaps to have been the wisest choice, and I should have continued following my first instincts). I stepped in to inform you that your broad brush sans any actual supporting evidence was just completely off-the-wall. And I will simply state here that such type behaviour on your part is why people here think you're a pest (and an eedjit), and why you get the hostility you get. Take a clue from Mona; we don't hate libertarians or even people with different opinions. We hate "Libertarian" foamers (and RNC Wurlitzer fonts like "shooter").

Now please get a clue. And "go and do the right thing", as MFCC Laura would say. That's my final word on the matter with you.

Cheers,

Was just over at Cohen's WaPo site to re read his screed, and i thought the 1st time i read it he said something like: "Washington was just being Washington by using character assisination". I may have remembered it wrong, though but there's nothing even close to that now. Anyone keep a copy of the original?

or yer agin 'im.

This from his chat today on WAPO

, I'll say that the ability of the press to ferret out information and use anonymous sources and to guarauntee to those sources that they'll remain convidential has been shredded by this case. Reporter after reporter was compelled to give up their sources. This has been a very bad case for the American press and for the American public and it's all about nothing.

,

I think this gets to the heart of what is eating many in the MSM about this case. It is not about any love lost for Mr Libby....it was the exposure of them and their methods that is at the heart of why they have such disdain for Mr Fitzgerald and this case. It is all personal.

One other point I am amazed at how so many often say this turned out to be about nothing when we don't know what we don't know because of obstruction by Mr Libby and others.