JFK

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:55:11 -0600, Mike Rhodes
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 17:56:10 -0700, "Tom S."
wrote:


"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. com...

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Since LBJ's wife was a major shareholder in the transportation company
(marine shipping) that had virtually a monopoly contract to ship war
material to Vietnam...well, you can guess the rest.

Lady Bird was owner of the Johnson businesses in name only.


Probably. I wonder what the rules were in the early 60's regarding blind
trusts, etc., for government officials.



For the record, to clarify my initial reply, I would not defend LBJ
politically, or Lady Bird. (I am not a democrat.) I was only trying
to point out the inherent weakness in the Asian commitment. As a
congressman who had a reputation as being pushy to get his way, Viet
Nam seems to be more of somebody else's war, (McNamara's, and the
military's), not his.

A blind trust was a notable factor in burying us into Viet Nam?
Mentioned in this newsgroup? That's a joke, right? But it might
actually clarify reasons for being indescisive. How much blood money
does one really need?

It may be a bit silly to give full credit to Jacqueline. But I've had
enough of JFK, a long time ago. I don't see it all, and I'm not
surprised that I don't. _I've seen no personality from him._ We
cried for JFK because we were told to, because we were of the type
back then who could still cry. Those are the sorrows, both of them.

Mike


I am a Reppublican, ("but" or "therefore") am against the venture
capitol in Iraq. Accusing Lady Bird is silly, except to screw up an
argument.

Also, the activists of the civil rights battles of the 60's probably
found the Viet Nam distraction useful, if not crucial; regardless of
McGovern's policies. Who would say they wanted Viet Nam? Except
imperialistic, communist killing (in other countries, we're all
Americans here, (after that McCarthy)) conservatives? Oh, if they had
minded our home instead!

U.S. activity in Iraq is active imperialism, to save the Iraqis and
make a 'safe' area in the mid-east. It's quite a risk, I think. Too
much. Doing so only increases our susceptibility to terrorism. The
Arabs, (crazy or no), have a point, in hating our interference. It is
natural, and a big sacrifice (to the point of one's real manhood) to
accept it. Why keep them around, anyway?