Obama Doesn't Have It And It May Be Too Late to Get It

At least get your facts straight before you criticize LBJ. He expanded the Vietnam War, but he didn't get us into it -- JFK and his advisors got us involved.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0861795.html#axzz0y2vljzyP

In 1961, South Vietnam signed a military and economic aid treaty with the United States leading to the arrival (1961) of U.S. support troops and the formation (1962) of the U.S. Military Assistance Command. Mounting dissatisfaction with the ineffectiveness and corruption of Diem's government culminated (Nov., 1963) in a military coup engineered by Duong Van Minh; Diem was executed.

 

Ok I shouldve said escalated our effort. And the important part of the sentence was how he got expanded the American presence in Vietnam.

 

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4305724&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

 

JFK may have sent military advisors, but I seriously doubt he would have committed ground troops in the manner LBJ did. I may be wrong, but we will never know.

 

I was in high school then -- the Vietnam War often was referred to as McNamara's War. Robert McNamara was John Kennedy's Secretary of Defense (LBJ kept him on in that post) who advanced the Domino Theory to justify entering and continuing the Vietnam War.

 

Jack Kennedy was already planning to begin withdrawing troops when he was killed. I've seen the declassified memo. I don't believe for a moment that he would have handled the conflict the way LBJ did, who drove himself half crazy, a term short, and into an early grave micro-managing the damn thing. Johnson sucked when it came to firing incompetent people. I'm an admirer of how he pushed through Kennedy's social agenda, but he had some serious flaws.

 

I myself have not seen these documents, but I do know that JFK was being urged by his brother Bobby to get out while McNamara and the military were tugging just as hard to expand our regional influence in the political vacuum left by the withdrawal of the French.

 

It's about the economy. I don't care if you are the second coming of Abraham Lincoln, if there is near 10% unemployment, it will be tough going.

Obama has left several seats at the FED vacant, which is puzzling. considering that, you know, the FED is the most important institution in dealing with recessions.

 

Also:

*Excerpt from the McNamara-Taylor Report which is incorporated in NSAM 263 by direct reference:

[SECTION] 1: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
B. Recommendations.



We recommend that:
1. General Harkins review with Diem the military changes necessary to complete the military campaign in the Northern and Central areas (I, II, and III Corps) by the end of 1964, and in the Delta (IV Corps) by the end of 1965. This review would consider the need for such changes as:
a. A further shift of military emphasis and strength to the Delta (IV Corps).
b. An increase in the military tempo in all corps areas, so that all combat troops are in the field an average of 20 days out of 30 and static missions are ended.
c. Emphasis on "clear and hold operations" instead of terrain sweeps which have little permanent value.
d. The expansion of personnel in combat units to full authorized strength.
e. The training and arming of hamlet militia to an accelerated rate, especially in the Delta.
f. A consolidation of the strategic hamlet program, especially in the Delta, and action to insure that future strategic hamlets are not built until they can be protected, and until civic action programs can be introduced.

2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.

3. In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.

[emphasis added]

http://www.jfklancer.com/NSAM263.html

And:

Newman’s argument was not a case of “counterfactual historical reasoning,” as Larry Berman described it in an early response.2 It was not about what might have happened had Kennedy lived. Newman’s argument was stronger: Kennedy, he claims, had decided to begin a phased withdrawal from Vietnam, that he had ordered this withdrawal to begin. Here is the chronology, according to Newman:

(1) On October 2, 1963, Kennedy received the report of a mission to Saigon by McNamara and Maxwell Taylor, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). The main recommendations, which appear in Section I(B) of the McNamara-Taylor report, were that a phased withdrawal be completed by the end of 1965 and that the “Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1,000 out of 17,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in Vietnam by the end of 1963.” At Kennedy’s instruction, Press Secretary Pierre Salinger made a public announcement that evening of McNamara’s recommended timetable for withdrawal.

(2) On October 5, Kennedy made his formal decision. Newman quotes the minutes of the meeting that day:

The President also said that our decision to remove 1,000 U.S. advisors by December of this year should not be raised formally with Diem. Instead the action should be carried out routinely as part of our general posture of withdrawing people when they are no longer needed. (Emphasis added.)
The passage illustrates two points: (a) that a decision was in fact made on that day, and (b) that despite the earlier announcement of McNamara’s recommendation, the October 5 decision was not a ruse or pressure tactic to win reforms from Diem (as Richard Reeves, among others, has contended3) but a decision to begin withdrawal irrespective of Diem or his reactions.

(3) On October 11, the White House issued NSAM 263, which states:

The President approved the military recommendations contained in section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.

In other words, the withdrawal recommended by McNamara on October 2 was embraced in secret by Kennedy on October 5 and implemented by his order on October 11, also in secret. Newman argues that the secrecy after October 2 can be explained by a diplomatic reason. Kennedy did not want Diem or anyone else to interpret the withdrawal as part of any pressure tactic (other steps that were pressure tactics had also been approved). There was also a political reason: JFK had not decided whether he could get away with claiming that the withdrawal was a result of progress toward the goal of a self-sufficient South Vietnam.

The alternative would have been to withdraw the troops while acknowledging failure. And this, Newman argues, Kennedy was prepared to do if it became necessary. He saw no reason, however, to take this step before it became necessary. If the troops could be pulled while the South Vietnamese were still standing, so much the better.

(4) But from October 11 onward the CIA’s reporting changed drastically. Official optimism was replaced by a searching and comparatively realistic pessimism. Newman believes this pessimism, which involved rewriting assessments as far back as the previous July, was a response to NSAM 263. It represented an effort by the CIA to undermine the ostensible rationale of withdrawal with success, and therefore to obstruct implementation of the plan for withdrawal. Kennedy, needless to say, did not share his full reasoning with the CIA.

http://bostonreview.net/BR28.5/galbraith.html


There's a lot more. This is some of it.

 

Interesting.

 

After the Johnson presidency, people like Walt Rostow and McNamara tried to spin things so it would look like Kennedy not only got us involved, but would have acted just as LBJ acted. Sadly, Jack Kennedy's death prevents us from knowing exactly how things would have played out in Vietnam, but I have no doubt that it would have been handled differently, and better. The war was a disaster for Johnson.

 

The JFK assassination and the Vietnam War was a disaster and tragedy for the entire country.

 

Problem hasn't been Obama's policies. His economic policies have actually been successful and probably saved us from a depression.

But he has failed to come across as likable. He's too detached in his delivery. He can't seem to connect with people or be likable.

His thinking and ideas are right, his presentation is off. He should learn from Clinton.

 

It isn't that at all. The recession is what's killing Obama in opinion polls. Simple as that. If the economy were turning around, he'd be doing well considering the ambitious agenda the Dems have enacted and it being a mid-term election. But when you consider the poor economy, doubts over the Afghan war, the oil spill, the enormous amount of legislation passed and the constant bombardment of disinformation from the GOP, there is no way that can be overcome. It isn't likability. I'm not saying Obama and his propaganda team have their stuff together, but he'd still be underwater in the polls even if they did.

No matter how you slice it, the Dems will get hammered in November and may even lose the House. At this point, I'd say the economy and the Afghan war will be the primary factors for how well he does in 2012 (assuming the GOP doesn't nominate someone unelectable).

"Likable" Bill Clinton's party got hammered in a historic way in 1994.

 

Case in point:

This is just dripping with condescension. Instead of saying "I understand there are people out there who have legitimate concerns.", he characterizes them as mindless rabble, easily stirred up. I would love to know what historical reference he is making. Or what "somebody like a Mr. Beck" is. How can a reporter not follow up after a statement like that?

I'm sure Jon Stewart and all the right people approve of this sentiment, but you can't disparage vast swaths of the electorate when you are the leader of the country.