Conference back40::soapbox

    
    His management of the war and his tactics were a mistake. 
    
    But, resisting the communists was a good idea. 
    

    Correct.  The Vietnam War bloodied the nose of communism and the
    effects lasted.  This was what made Vietnam a necessity.  
    
    The Phillipeans would certainly have been next!
    
    -Jack

    
    I'll save Meowski the trouble to reply here...
    
    
       IT WAS ALL THE REPUBLICANS FAULT!!!!!!
    
    
     No need to thank me George...
    

    
    re 1
    
    interesting you should mention that commmunist aspect aka.domino
    theory I suppose.
     
    He even admits that reason was a big mistake too. We didn't understand
    the relationship of Nam to China to Cambodia. We just labeled them
    all commies to be killed. And assumed they would actually merge to
    help one another through war and peace.
    
    Dave
    
    

>    The Phillipeans would certainly have been next!

The Commies would have taken over a book of the NT?

A new book on Windows NT ?

    No you idjits.  The book in the NT is Philippeans!
    
    -Jack

    McNamara.

 PhilippIans

    
    
    Jack
    
    Shut up...
    
    :)
    

    
    re. 8
    
    darn. spelled his name wrong. oh well.
    
    Dave
    

NT has a book reader??

    > Yet he feels it was just too much of a burden on his  brain, so that
    > is his reason. 
    
    Not at all.  He says it is important to get it on the record; so we as
    a people, and our future leaders, can learn from what he now recognizes
    to have been colossal mistakes.
    
    > I suppose he was just a cog in the  machine,
    
    Nope- this was his war.  He was the most influential adviser involved
    at all phases during the buildup, and responsible in many ways.
    
    I'll buy this book at first opportunity- seldom do we get the chance to
    read how such terrible mistakes were made.  MacNamara has held his
    silence on the war for over twenty years.  This is his story.
    
    DougO

    .3
    
    <<IT WAS ALL THE REPUBLICANS FAULT!!!!!!>>
    
    Those who know the truth are gaining in numbers.....

    For those interested, watch how this book is used to justify Clinton's
    evading the draft.  I figure it will be within the next few days, if
    not already done, that the media is going to say, "See, all those war
    protesters were right."  the next step will be that the slimeball
    clinton did the right thing.  It won't be long before the left is going
    to recommend him for sainthood based on his strong moral values in
    opposing the war.
    
    I can't reaaly comment on whether the war was right or not, but I do
    know that the way it was conducted was a crime.  A lot of kids got
    their brains blown out because LBJ and his crew didn't have the guts to
    make the tough decision to actually win the war.
    
    McNamara should crawl back under the rock he has hidden under for the
    last 20 years.
    

    .15
    
    > the next step will be that the slimeball
    > clinton did the right thing.
    
    	"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just
    	laws.  Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust
    	laws."
    
    			- the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
    
    But that's okay, you and your hatemonger pals just go right ahead and
    slam Slick for doing what he believed in despite laws that invited him
    to enjoy an all-expenses-paid trip to oblivion in the rice paddies of
    Viet Nam whether he wanted to go or not.

    
    I would agree with you Dick, except for the part at the end where you
    say that slick "believed in" what he was doing...
    
      I believe (imho) what he did was to save his ass and nothing as moral
    and altruistic as protesting the war and innocent lives lost...
    
     Your mileage may vary though...

    Re: 16
     Oh gee, because I refer to Slick as a slimeball you call me a
    hatemonger.  well, then how would you refer to Slick and his fellow
    travelers who stood at the airports and screamed at the returning GIs
    and called them baby killers.
    
    I don't know of too many guys who went to Viet Nam for the fun of it. 
    They went because they beleived in their obligation to this country. 
    Despite all of the protestations to the contrary, most of those opposed
    to the war were plain cowards.  They knoew that a lot of people could
    be killed and they tried to hide behind the noble principle of
    protesting the war when all they wanted to do was keep their own
    priviledged keesters safe at home.
    
    My contention still stands.  the media is going to start the process
    of justifying Slick's cowardice as being justified now that McNamamra
    says it was a mistake.
    

    
    
    In a nutshell, McNamara admitted that the basic premises and 
    assumptions of their decision making was absolutely flawed.
    One big reason was nobody in that inner circle had a clue to 
    the history, layout, culture or political dynamics of the
    region. Tragically over time, nobody would want to admit their
    mistakes or back-down their positions; I'm sure the usual egos
    were at play.
    
    The admin underestimated the nationalistic fervor of the Vietnamese
    people, and that by publicly backing up the puppet govt of S. Vietnam
    actually made the people more cynical over the ability of their own
    govt.
    
    The fear of communism running rampant, with the awful spectre of the
    Domino theory at work, proved to be rather unfounded. I was living in
    Malaysia then, which till now is non-aligned (no foreign aid, military
    bases etc), but we did not fear that we will be overrun by the
    communists from Indo-China.
    
    If these people had bothered to read the history books, they would have
    concluded that albeit being painful and brutal, Indo-China had been beset by
    one civil conflict after another over the CENTURIES, and no foreign 
    reign or intervention has yet changed that fact! Heck, the US could 
    have learned from the French, and that was RECENT history!
    
    I'm glad McNamara wrote the book; it takes a big man to admit any
    mistake, let alone one that altered the course of a nation and cost
    so many lives.  I still contend that the US had NO reason whatsoever
    to be in Vietnam in the first place.
    
    
    
    

    I second Ashikin's comments.  I've only read a few chapters of the book
    myself so far, but its well written.  McNamara has become a more severe
    critic of the man he was thirty years ago than any of you here could
    possibly be.
    
    One thing that contributed to the total lack of knowledge of this
    region is the fact that all the top southeast Asia hands were purged
    from the state department during the mccarthy witchhunts.  McNamara now
    admits with benefit of hindsight that they completely underestimated
    the nationalistic character of the north vietnamese, they misunderstood
    them as communists first and nationalists second; it was the other way
    around.  
    
    I'll try to post extracts when I finish.
    
    DougO

    Mr. Binder is correct... just another opportunity to contort something
    into a Klintoon bashing tool... it get so tiring.
    
    Chip

    
    
    
    I question many of the people's motives who did slick things to avoid
    serving, Dick.  If they were afraid, come out and say they were afraid.
    
    The treatment of the returning GI's was enough to make me ill.  I've
    heard it too many times for it to have been an isolated incident.  If
    slick was involved in any of this, then he disgraces his office.  It's
    no secret, he is held in contempt by MANY of the people in the service
    now.  Talk to them, you will see.  There is respect for the office but
    not for the man who holds the office now.
    
    
    Mike

    .22 et al.
    
    I agree that we crapped bigtime on the returning Nam vets.  But that
    does not make what they did right - or wrong, for that matter.  It
    makes us as a nation wrong.  And among the "us as a nation" I rank many
    of the protesters and evaders very highly.
    
    But I also know that many (probably most) of the protesters meant what
    they said about their beliefs that we had no business being there.  The
    right to express, and act peaceably on, sincere dissent is one of the
    major reasons for this country's existence.  The people who slam
    protesters with the old "duty to their country" hogwash are so lost in
    fanaticism that they miss the point of this nation.
    
    Our national interests were not at stake in Viet Nam despite the Red
    Menace and Yellow Peril arguments put forth by the warmongering
    military-industrial complex.  The fact that war is good business is not
    enough to become a national interest.

    
    
    Well, times were different Dick (I know you know this).  The red menace
    was a real fear at the time.  The lines of communication between the
    USSR and the US was nil.  I wish I could buy the motives of the folks
    back then, but if you look at their actions (towards the returning
    vets), they go against what these people preached.  Peace and love
    until it's someone you don't agree with or did go to serve, then it's 
    hate and violence.  The vets that I know who came back and didn't get
    hassled were those that wore civies instead of their uniforms.  
    
    
    Mike

    I simply think its more of a Kennedy issue than a Johnson, Nixon or
    Clinton. I won`t read the book after wasting my energies in the U.S.M.C
    at the time...but you can bet it wouldn`t make me a happy camper
    knowing that fellow Marines and milatary folks for nought.

    Re: 23
    
    Gee, I didn't know that "duty to your country" was a bunch of hogwash. 
    I'm sure the GIs who served in WWII and Korea would like to know that
    doing your duty is a real sucker thing to do.
    
    The fact that almost every lamebrained supporter of the Viet Nam
    protesters avoids is that people started protesting the draft, not the
    war.  When those arguments didn't save their arses, then they started
    on the whole "immoral war" kick.  I talked to enough of the anti-war
    folks at the time to know that, unless I just haappened to get an
    unrepresentative sample, that they just palin didn't want to go and had
    no other alternative.  so they jumped on the draft bandwagon and then
    the anti-war bandwagon, just to keep from going.
    
    The percentage of the people who had a personal and principled
    objection to war, as with any war, were quite small.  these people were
    the traditional contientious objecters and opposed all war on moral or
    religious grounds.  The viet Nam protesters particularly later in the
    war, were a bunch of wannabees who didn't have a clue as to the
    original purposes.
    
    Trying to defend the majority of these protesters, including slick,
    really points out your personal biases and a lack of true knowledge of
    the times.
    

    .26 bull... don't lump lump the defense of protesters and BC into the 
        sentence (i don't defend either). 
    
        a point i made earlier was around the original statement Dick made
        about the ubiquitous attacks that everything is BC's fault or he's
        in on the conspiracy (McNamara's book). 
    
        it's not defending BC it's questioning the paranoid behavior of
        twisting everything to launch an attack. quite silly, really.
    
        Chip

      Did McNamara say anything about Agent Orange?  
    
      Man, I am reading a book called 'Corporate Crime and Violence...
      Big Business Power and the Abuse of Public Trust' and its 
      account of Agent orange is staggering.
    
      Dow Chemical KNEW that stuff was poisonous and they sprayed tons
      of that crap in areas where US military were exposed.  The stories
      of the victims is overwhelming.
    
      Of course, DOW was never _legally_ found to have committed any
      wrongdoing.
    
    						Tony

    re: .26
    
       >The viet Nam protesters particularly later in the
       >war, were a bunch of wannabees who didn't have a clue as to the
       >original purposes.
    
    Original Purpose, what a crock! Men didn't want to kill and they didn't
    want to die. Their wives, children, mothers, fathers, sisters brothers 
    and girlfriends felt the same. You may call it lamebrained, I call it 
    good sense. 
    
    Also "duty to country" is a good thing. However, the vietnam war was
    duty to warmongering, power-seeking politicians and had nothing to do
    with patriotism. Good men died for nothing except to bolster this
    political power. Instead of blaming the war protesters we should be mad
    as hell at those who perpetrated the unnecessary death of thousands of
    Americans, left wives widowed, mothers childless, and children
    fatherless.
    
    Retaliation against a direct attach on ones own country may be
    justified, however killing not in the act of self defense can never be. 
    There is nothing unpatriotic about peace.
    
    ...Tom

    .26
    
    There are good reasons to fight for your country and there are bad
    reasons.  The "my country right or wrong" posture, which is basically
    synonymous with "duty to your country" in the case of Viet Nam, smacks
    of jingoism.  And unthinking jingoism smacks of the ready, fire, aim
    mentality that scares me a whole bunch no matter where it comes from.
    
    Don't get me wrong.  I have no problem with serving my country - but
    when it's doing something that is immoral, I'm gonna object first and
    take alternative service second.  I would have gone in a heartbeat in
    1943.  I wouldn't have gone at all in 1965.

    re: .23
    
    Agree, and furthermore:
    
    Vets need to realize that there are many people who:
    
    	1) Opposed and/or protested the U.S. involvement in
    	   this particular war,
    
    	AND
    
    	2) Did not and/or would not serve in this particular war,
    
    	AND
    
    	3) Nevertheless had and still have the utmost respect and
    	   regards for those who did serve in the war,
    
    	AND
    
    	4) Would gladly serve, fight, and die if necessary in a war
    	   to defend our own nation and people.
    
    
    I believe that most of the "protesters", "dodgers", etc., fit the
    above description, at least most of the ones I've come across over
    the years.  The demonizing of the Vietnam war opposer over the last
    decade is most disconcerting; it's not only highly inaccurate and
    over-generalizing, but it's also insulting to most who are quite
    patriotic and respect the vets.
    
    As for Slick, my feelings concerning him are well-documented in
    this and past boxes (I was the one who used the "pure evil"
    description, for example).  Given that... my problem with him
    in this area is not so much that he opposed the war or even that
    he avoided serving in it, but rather that he used such, er, "slick"
    means of avoidance at the time, and worst of all, he did not honestly
    account for the matter to the American people as a presidential
    candidate.
    
    If he'd come clean about the whole thing right up front, it would
    have been far easier to deal with than his usual lying and dodging.
    
    Chris

    -1 a lot of vets do...
    
       Chip

    Re: last few
    
    Oh please..... You want to try and tell me that the war protesters in
    64-67, who happen to be a lot of the same folks who were into the whole
    anti-establishment theme were serious thinkers who had a strong moral
    and principled objection to the US involvement in Viet Nam.
    
    Unfortunately, as I said, I knew a lot of those folks and they were in
    the demonstrations as a way to thumb their collective noses at
    authority and didn't have a clue about any of the details related to
    the war.  Attempts to cannonize these people is sickening.  they were
    largely, not totally, a bunch of lamebrained cowards with nothing
    better to do.
    
    Also, the references to the military-industrial complex promoting the
    war for profit are right out of the protesters handbook from 1965. 
    It's as wrong today as it was then.  Anyone who uses that term shows
    their ignorance.
    
    Claiming patriotism while burning the flag is hypocracy at it's
    highest.
    

    i'm not trying to tell you that. what i am telling you is your broad
    brush generalization isn't working for me (and not for some others,
    evidently).
    
    Chip

I like Tim O'Brien's stories of the war.

In one story he writes about this kid who heads
for the Canadian border after he is drafted.  He
doesn't want to go, he's scared, and feels the 
war is not justified.

But he returns home and he goes to war.  Because
he knows that his parents and friends and neighbors
would never understand if he refused to go.

And he feels that this decision is a cowardly one.

I wonder how many other 18 year old boys felt this
way when they were called.

    
    As a vet, I don't begrudge people having differing opinions, what
    I do get angry with are the Bozo's that flew the North Vietnamize flag
    at demonstrations - something about aiding and abetting. (spelling?)
    
    I remember seeing an interview on A&E with a former Gerneral in the
    NVA who indicated that when the governement in the North saw the
    protesting going on (via TV) they knew they could win by simply
    outlasting the US.  They had us pegged pretty good.  Given that,
    I've wondered how many guys died as a result of the war continuing
    as long as it did.  In a sense the people protesting violence, created
    more violence because they gave encouragement to the enemy.
    
    
    
    
    
    

>they knew they could win by simply
    outlasting the US.

And before us, they outlasted the French.  And before
the French, they outlasted the Chinese.  They were 
prepared to fight for decades, if that's what it took.

    One of the lessons from Vietnam that we do seem to have learned is
    that it's folly to wage war if'n broad popular support for the action
    isn't in place. 
    
    Judging from early reactions, McNamara's book seems to have opened some
    old wounds. I wonder what he intends to do with the profits. 

    
    RE: <<< Note 380.37 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>>
    
    >And before us, they outlasted the French.  And before
    >the French, they outlasted the Chinese.  They were
    >prepared to fight for decades, if that's what it took.
    
    Certainly have to give credit to them for staying power. But
    we also have to give the same credit to the south vietnamise.
    The folks I knew (south vietnam navy riverboats) were trying to
    outlast the North Vietnamise. 
    
     
    
    
     

    >I wonder what he intends to do with the profits.
    
     Prolly warm his toes in the Carribean...

    
    The problem was we were trying to fight the war, on their field,
    playing by their rules.  From the reading I've done, these people 
    could disappear in a moments notice (that's how well dug in they 
    were).  
    
    
    Mike

    It was worse, Mike.  Not only were we on their turf, subject to their
    rules, but we didn't even acknowledge until much too late that we were
    simply not able to impose our own rules on them.
    
    The exact same thing happened in the American Civil War, which was the
    first significant war fought with rifled arms.  The generals simply
    didn't understand that the whole tactics of war had to change overnight
    because it was now possible to hit the man you were aiming at instead
    of maybe hitting someone in his general direction.  Bloodbaths like
    Cold Harbor, as late as 1864, proved that the generals weren't
    learning.
    
    In Nam, we kept trying to fight a temperate-zone war with armor and
    artillery - which just plain won't work when you're in a jungle
    fighting against an enemy who does not have fixed bases of operations
    on the surface.  And we just about never figured that out.

    
    re:     <<< Note 380.41 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER >>>
    
    Actually we were trying to play by some rather idotic rules made up
    by Johnson and company.  (ie - we'll only fight on southern 
    vietnamise soil, heaven forbid we tangle with the Ho Chi Minh trail
    in Cambodia.)
    
    When we finally brought the war to them by bombing Haiphong and
    Hanoi during Operation Linebacker they came scurring back to the 
    peace table in a hurry.  It's when laser bombs made their first
    appearance.
    
    The Gulf War was an example of the lesson learned.  Fight the enemy 
    where it hurts HIM, on HIS soil.    
               

    
    
    RE: .42&.43 agreed. 
    
    
    Mike

    I saw a special on the "tunnel rats"; the bombs could never 
    penetrate enough to hurt them, and the poor GIs who had to go in
    those tunnels after them, shudder.
    

    re: Note 380.45
    
    That's why going after them is a waste of time (although the VC
    had the same fear of our SEALs)
    
    The thing you go after are their harbors, bridges, railroads
    and other industrial centers (yes the north was industrialized).
    Cause them enough pain they decide not to pursue the war.
    
    
    

Did we ever carpet bomb in VN to the same degree and for the same
duration that we did in Kuwait/Iraq?

    
    re: Note 380.47
    
    We did "saturation" bombing, but that problem was the targets
    for all types of bombing were very limited due to the policy made
    by the politicians in Washington (including McNamara).  when we
    finally went after them (Operation Linebacker, as well as others)
    The NVA lost heart.  Most people forget they signed a non agression
    pact with the south.
    
    
    
    
      
    

re: .-1

I think that answer was "no". Correct?

    Re: Note 380.49
    
    Sorry about that.
    
    I'd have to say no.  But from the viewpoint of targetting the 
    enemy.  We did "carpet bomb" the jungle a lot, to little or no 
    effect.          
    
    Only at the end of the war did we do heavy bombing (like Iraq)
    and that was only for a few days.  Congress threatened to cut off
    funding which stopped the bombing.
    
     
    

    
    RE: .45
    
    Voluntary detail... 
    
    Although they did tend to seek those under 5'6" for the "assignment"
    

    .51
    
    I wondered about that since the average American male seems to
    be much larger than the Vietnamese.  
    
    

    
    oh oh... could become a military tactics, weaponry, technology rathole
    real soon!
    
    Back to base topic pls... I know lots of you were in the armed forces
    before, and the temptation to share war stories is almost irresistable,
    but could we elevate the discussion above the foxholes and
    tunnels now?
    
    Thanks.

    
    Question for those who have read (or are reading) the book  -
    
    I heard a blurb on TV about this, and it indicated that McNamara
    wanted to figth the war based on principles, and felt that was not
    the error.  The error was in misunderstanding the military situation.
    
    Has that come across, or was the blurb in error?
    
    thanks,
     
    al 
    

I only had to read that six or seven times to realize that "figth"
should have been "fight".

Must be Friday night . . . 

    Just a couple of points.  the first is that McNamara still hasn't
    gotten it after all these years.  The reason we were unsuccessful in
    Viet Nam is that McNamara and his ilk were in charge of the conduct of
    the war.  He still thinks that because he was absolutely out of his
    depth in conducting any war, the fact that we lost must have been that
    we made a mistake in being in the war.
    
    He was a stupid, arrogant, ivy-league intellectual then and because he
    stuck his nose in where it didn't belong, at least in terms of the
    actual conduct of the war, and is now trying to justify his
    incompetence.  He is even more pathetic now than he was then.  Anyone
    who falls for his self-serving attempt is as niave as McNamara is
    arrogant.
    
    OBTW, as I noted in a prior entry here, anyone see CNN the other night? 
    The spin has begun for Slick.  He was asked by Wolf Blitzer if he now
    feels his anti-war activities were justified based on McNamara's book,
    and this slimy little bastard says, "Oh, yes I know it sounds
    self-serving, but I do feel exhonerated."  Those who think that this
    book being published now is simply coincidence and has nothing to do
    with helping the Slickster in 96, probably also believe Kennedy's
    explanation of Mary Jo.
    
    How sad.
    

    
    
    I hope that comment comes back and bites slick, big time.  What an
    arrogant self serving SOB that guy is.  It's enough to make me sick.
    
    
    Mike

    Rocush,
    
    Your assessment is right on.  McNamara was on the Today Show this
    AM; now he's blaming it on the right-wing "hawks" that demanded we
    continue the war!!!
    
    If he's accepting responsibility for making a mistake (in the book);
    it sure didn't come across in that interview.  He said it "pains"
    him that veterans have been critical of him, and feels they couldn't
    have read the book or they would understand.
    
    

LBJ was most definitely a hawk just as sure as he most definitely WASN'T
right wing.

    .56
    
    Although it is diverting to read your foaming-at-the-mouth denunciation
    of NcNamara, it might also be interesting to note - what is documented
    - that he told LBJ, in one of the 1965 inner-circle meetings, that we
    had two options in Viet Nam.  One was to get out and cut our losses,
    and the other was to give Westmoreland what he was asking for, and by
    '68 there would be half a million GIs in Nam, dying at the rate of
    1,000 a month, and we'd still end up unable to achieve our objectives. 
    LBJ asked him point blank, are you telling me that whatever I do we
    can't win?  and McMamara said yes, that's what I'm telling you.  The
    circle, McNamara demurring, then rejected option 1 out of hand and,
    after a day or so of discussion, elected to comply with option 2.
    
    And this really sounds like a warmongering idjit to you?  Get a clue,
    please, before you get your other foot as far down your gullet as
    you've got the first one.

    > Just a couple of points.  the first is that McNamara still hasn't
    > gotten it after all these years. 
    
    You read the book?
    
    DougO

    
    
    Well, an esteemed ex-boxer has some very interesting things to say
    with regards to this matter.  A tad personal, so I won't post it. 
    suffice it to say that he was not impressed with either slick's feeling
    exhonorated nor McNamara and his book.
    
    
    Mike  

    esteemd by whom, Mike?
    
    And I wasn't asking anybody but Rocush whether he'd read the book.
    He's the one with both feet in his mouth.
    
    DouGO

    Re: 63
    
    There are certain books and other media that I chose not to waste my
    time with.  I have not read this book in detail, other than some of the
    excerpts.  You may chose, once again, to ignore the basic point of my
    note, but that's your choice.
    
    Quite frankly, if McNamara really felt that the war was a mistake and
    we should have gotten out, he had more than enough opportunities to
    make that position known at the time.  He did not, and no one who is
    familiar with the times will ever beleive him.  Just for your
    information, if McNamara really felt that this was a no win situation,
    and the conduct of the war was wrong, then he could ahve resigned.  He
    didn't and therefore takes all of the blame for his and LBJ's war and
    no amount of self-serving blattering will change that.
    
    You may read the book if you like and find various passages to support
    him.  I will not spend my money to support this lying creep and will
    try to make sure that as few people spend their hard earned money to
    put bucks in his pocket.  Of course, please feel free to spend your
    money how you like.
    
    Since I lived through those times and saw this guy on the news every
    night, I don't really need to see how he tries to whitewash it now.
    
    OBTW, if McNamara was one of the "best and brightest" and couldn't come
    up with a decent policy on the war, what makes anyone think that the
    rest of this brain trust that came up with the war on poverty were any
    better at their tasks.  If McNamara thinks the Viet Nam war was a
    mistake, when will the other Mensa members of LBJ's admin step forward
    and admit the mistakes of that war.
    

    
    LBJ is dead, as is Dean Rusk.
    
    I wonder if we'll be hearing from McGeorge Bundy.

    
    Ted Kopple had it right the other night.
    
    He asked McNamara over and over again.
    
    Why didn't he speak out, and take a stand when it mattered.Back
    when we were losing so many? If he knew, why didn't he try harder to
    do something. 
    
    This hits close to home for me as a former drafted infantryman. But
    I am not suprised, his recollections are nothing new. We, at least
    those of us in Californina and many in Mass. new the war was 
    lost. But you had choices. Go to Canada, go to prison.Stay in
    school for 10 years or go to Nam. I just couldn't leave my country.
    And prison was not a choice for me.
    
    I didn't see a lot of gung-ho drafted men. Just average guys, doing
    their duty and trying to stay alive. Most of us new we were victims
    of a mistake. But...what can you do It was a different time. 50% of
    this nation still were blind to the mistake. That is why Nixion was able
    to carry it on for another 5 years  and 26 thousand lives.
    
    This war is like the Civil war, it appears it will be with us 
    forever.
    
             

    > Why didn't he speak out, and take a stand when it mattered.
    
    Could it have anything at all to do with the fact that, as Secretary of
    Defense, he was required to support, in public, the decisions made by
    his boss?  Nah, couldn't be anything as simple as that, now, could it? 
    Or maybe that he was bound by laws regarding the confidentiality of
    information that might suggest we couldn't win?  Oh, no, couldn't be
    that, either, could it?

    Re: 67
    
    Just in case you missed the other note.  HE COULD HAVE RESIGNED.
    
    If he had any doubts, and thought the war was a mistake, regardless of
    his position, he could have resigned.  Perhaps just the threat of
    resigning might have made a difference.
    

    Is it possible for someone to post the transcripts of the interview
    with Donna Shalala(sp) from a Saturday talking heads show.  Apparently
    she made some remark like "We didn't send the best and the brightest to
    Vietnam.  We sent people from rural areas and inner cites, while the
    sons of wealthy people stayed home."  Rush was talking about it today,
    but I would like independent verification.
    
    Amazing a cabinet level person thinks like this.
    
    Dan
    

    Without access to ALL the documents and tapes and records, we'll never
    really know exactly how often, or how forecfully, he repeated his
    assertion that we couldn't win and ought to get out.  He may have felt
    at that time that he had a better chance of getting the prez to pull
    our forces out than some weak-willie soft-soap artist - or some MIC
    warhawk - who might be nominated to replace him.

>    LBJ is dead

And, not a moment too soon, I might add . . . 

re: McNamara could have resigned

Typically, Demo cab members only resign when they are requested to do so by
the boss. Few have sufficient personal intestinal fortitude to come up
with that option via independent thought.

>    Amazing a cabinet level person thinks like this.

Aw, c'mon, Dan - Where's the smiley?

    .69
    
    > Amazing a cabinet level person thinks like this.
    
    It's not amazing at all.  She's quite correct.
    
    We had a draft, and since it was easier for wealthier and better-
    educated young men to get into college (and thereby become deferred
    until they could get out and be hired by a corporation that could get
    them essential-skill deferment) than it was for indigent and less well
    educated rural and inner-city youths, it's absolutely true that we
    didn't send the best and brightest to Nam.

    So we need a cabinet level person to come out and say to all of the
    people who served in 'Nam that they were neither the best nor the
    brightest?  Tell that to all of the people who served and who are
    sucessful today.  I guess those who live in the inner city or rural
    areas need all the help they can get to obtain "best and brightest"
    status.  Boy I am glad those in office are looking out for the
    "non-best and brightest" folks.
    
    Dan 

    
    
    But Dick, just cuz someone didn't go to college doesn not eliminate
    them from being one of the best and/or brightest.  This is typical
    limolib thinking on her part.  And they say the repubs are out of
    touch......

    I didn't hear Shalala's comment, but I'd bet she was talking at a
    certain (understood) level of generality. In other words, don't take
    the "all" literally.
    
    Other things being equal, I'd accept her characterization.

    
    If "the best and the brightest" means that there were some who had
    contacts and who knew how to work the system to achieve the goal of not
    being drafted and/or sent to Nam, then I'll agree with the term...
    
    Although I'm averse to crediting Slick with that title... cause he
    certainly knew how to work things...
    

>    We had a draft, and since it was easier for wealthier and better-
>    educated young men to get into college (and thereby become deferred
>    until they could get out and be hired by a corporation that could get
>    them essential-skill deferment) than it was for indigent and less well
>    educated rural and inner-city youths, it's absolutely true that we
>    didn't send the best and brightest to Nam.

Until the student deferment was eliminated.

    I agree he should have resigned; he might have joined the ranks of
    a true statesman by having the guts to resign and speak out and tell
    the truth!!!
    
    If he's looking to the veterans for absolution, he's really out to
    lunch.
    
    

    (Here's Gene's opinion on the matter)
    
-- [ From: Gene Haag] --

mike,

well isn't it nice that macnamara and slick now feel vindicated?

that lying SOB in the white house just doesn't get it. every time he opens his
mouth on the subject he insults and inflames the memories of those that served.

today is april 17th. twenty years ago today we were trying to get people
    (censored) off the beaches and boats to ferry
them further south. hue city was gone. just about all of the northern provinces
were overrun. there was mass chaos. people were literally killing themselves to
get on the choppers. at one point ARVN officers were pushing ahead of the women
and kids saying that charlie would kill them if they stayed. one air force
seargant said BS - stand and fight.  (censored)

a really good friend of mine died when the rescue helo he was on slammed into
the south china sea after taking some really heavy ground fire. to this day i
swear that ground fire came from our alledged (cesored) allies - the ARVN. some
of the ARVN troops were really pissed because they were being left behind. and
lets not forget the 3 sailors killed when an ARVN helo crashed into the deck of
the blue ridge when it was ordered, by me, to ditch in the south china sea.
guess they didn't want to get their uniforms wet. when they crashed one of the
blades shattered and a piece of it decapitated jerry miguel.

and all of this could have been prevented if mcnamara would have admitted what
he knew 7 years earlier. instead he walked away and let thousands more die
needlessly. so he gets on tv and sheds a few tears in the hope more will feel
sympathetic towards him and maybe buy his book. i just wish he would go away
and die someplace.

i've always said i don't blame slick for using political ties to avoid the
draft. many a good man did that. but he did lie, repeatedly, about what he did
for political purposes. to this day he still won't come clean on his actions.
and he has the gall to say he is now somehow vindicated by the writings of a
political murderer. just as the hippies in sanfan spit at me for wearing a
uniform in '71, i spit at slick for being so GD'd arrogant and stupid as to
attempt self praise for doing what he did. and the only reason he mentions it
at all is for, in his mind, political gain. 

its a testimony to slicks stupidity that he consistently tries to gain favor
with those who fought the war by issuing statements that achieve exactly the
opposite. the ruling elite frequently fall into that kind of a trap. those that
are successful and respected avoid that which they do not understand or that
which is best left to others. slicks lying about his actions, his visit to the
wall on memorial day, and his continued assinine, insulting statements will
forever label him a bastard in my book. the best thing to come of all this is
that his actions will further doom any chances he has at re-election. i for one
will campaign HARD to bring out the vote to kick him out office next year. 4
years of these idiots are enough.

that's enough rambling for a monday morning.

later,

gene

    
    
    "Who really Killed JFK"
    (I knew, but couldn't tell)
    
          by 
    
     Robert McNamara
         2001
    
    
    

    I asked for it and I got it: McGeorge Bundy on MacNeil/Lehrer tonight.
    
    

    Well, Robert Mcnamara's book is out on the stands and is now radio talk 
    show fodder. He now states we were wrong to be there and it was a 
    unwinnable war. Again hindsight is 20-20. To bad 58,0000 of our boys 
    cannot be here to hear this. Maybe they are better off where they are.....
    
    And Clinton....mannn.....you ARE a 1 termer.
    
    I feel a lot of pain throughout our country as a result of all this 
    coming out in this book. Many families who lost loved ones must feel
    really cheated. 
    
    Maybe it might have better if this book did not come out, it just seems 
    pointless and self serving.
    
    Vindication? for those who did not serve, maybe, 
    
    Justice, for those who served, no.
    
    My 2 cents
    
    Phil    
        

    Talk about blood money. 58,000 lives to make a mil or two on a book...

    A number of friends and family members who served all have indi-
    cated that it took them many years to come to terms with what they
    saw and experienced; it cost them more pain than most of them can
    express.  When most of them finally came to a place where they have
    some modicum of peace and serenity in their lives this jack*ss has
    to re-open old wounds.
    
    So McNamara's conscience finally got to him; swell, how many will
    once again suffer because of this self-serving book :-(
    

    McNamara has written several other books.  He has been prominent in
    many other forums since leaving the Defense Department; in particular,
    he served as head of the World Bank for years, and wrote a book about
    that.  I think this is his fifth or sixth.  He didn't do it for the
    money.  Very few people that I know would have the guts to write that
    what they did for years was terribly wrong and misguided- to suggest
    that he did it for money ignores that he's old and has plenty already,
    and ignores the content of the book itself.  He says he wrote it to
    explain how he and his cohorts made such terrible mistakes- as
    something terribly important to explain to future leaders who will
    certainly be in similar circumstances, ignorant and mislead and brash.
    
    Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.  He is trying to make
    certain that these particular failures, as he understands them, are
    part of the historical record.  Accusing him of money grubbing is so
    wrong-headed as to be contemptible.
    
    DougO

    
    it will repeat itself again.
    there are men & women just like McNamara everywhere.
    they don't listen, they just do things.
    no matter what the cost.
    
    history just keeps repeating itself, since people like McNamara
    seem to be present in positions of authority everywhere.
    
    Dave
    

    
    RE: .86
    
    Well, why doesn't he contribute the profits to a veterans group, then?
    
    If he keeps ANY of the money, he's making profit off dead men. Men he
    sent to their early grave.
    
    Paul
    

    re .88
    
    Well, are you for sure know that he is not??
    
    I agree with Doug, $$$ is not the motivator for him. If this
    is the only he can now sleep at night, so be it. Instead of
    condemning him (I do understand the rationale behind that),
    let's learn from these mistakes.
    
    Lesson #1 ----- GO out there and be educated about other
    people's history, culture, political dynamics, etc.
    
    Lesson #2 ----- frankly GIGO still holds; bad assumptions do
    contribute to bad decisions.
    
    Lesson #3 ----- Honesty is the BEST policy and integrity cannot be
    bartered or sold. Had these POLITICIANS been honest and had integrity,
    they wouldn't have gone along with the war. Surely they were affected
    by the body count and psych damages - afterall some of the boys 
    did probably come from their towns/enclaves, but nobody was HONEST 
    enough (or courageous) to admit that BAD is BAD.
    
    

    Re: 86
    
    The only contemptible about anything anyone says about McNamara's book
    is that the vilification is not rampant.  It is absolutely immaterial
    whether he wrote the book for money or not.  If he makes a dime off of
    this book, that is contemptible.  If anyone supports this book as a
    noble effort of an old man to ease his spirit, then they are
    contemptible.
    
    McNamara then, and still does, considers himself one of the "best and
    brightest" and now he is going to lecture to us about how not to make
    mistakes.  He is, and was, contemptible.
    

    Rocush,
    
    Your assessment of McNamara lines up with what I sensed watching
    him on the Today Show.  I had a sense that there was a lot of
    "poor, misunderstood me" about the interview.
    
    The vets don't owe him a clear conscience.  
    
    

    
    RE: .86
    
    I would agree with you DougO except for the fact that Mc is on the
    standard book promo circuit... Poo-pooing his book and all...
    
     If he had(has) a conscience... write the book, back off, and let the
    chips fall where they may...
    
      Otherwise it sure as heck looks like a money-grubbing venture to
    me...
    

    He announced yesterday that he would donate profits to an association
    that works to promote understanding and better communications between
    the US and the Vietnamese.  
    
    DougO

    >vilification is not rampant
    
    Oh, thirty years of hatred isn't enough for you?  Is there any way at
    all, Rocush, that McNamara can make up for his past mistakes?  Do tell
    us what it would be.  Those of us who don't have a knee-jerk hatred
    towards the man find it profitable to examine how our system, which put
    him into such a place where he could make such terrible mistakes, did
    that.  How it created him; how his mistakes were made.  If you don't
    think those are lessons worth learning, then you're essentially arguing
    for the same mistakes to be made again- you want to see another
    brilliant idiot in charge, making avoidable mistakes, dooming another
    generation.  Sure, shout down McNamara.  Go ahead.
    
    DougO

    	Boy, Doug.  It wouldn't take much to change a few words in there
    	and ask you the exact same thing about the republican congress
    	and payback...

    If there are any congressional obstructionists who have expressed any
    regret for their lowball tactics and thereby don't think they deserve
    payback for 'em, its news to me.  Most of them are positively proud of
    what they've done.
    
    McNamara isn't.
    
    DougO

    Re: 94
    
    First of all, McNamara could have made a very simple statement and
    worked with the various intelligence agencies and state, etc to share
    his knowledge.  He did not have to write a book.  If he wanted to help
    this country avoid the same mistakes, then he had an unlimited number
    of possibilities open to him.  writing a book is probably the least
    effective of all courses he could have chosen.  As a matter of fact, it
    looks an awful lot like he's doing exactly the same thing again - and
    you're buying it.  He's saying, "hey, I'm a lot smarter than you since
    I screwed up and killed a bunch of kids and split this country apart. 
    I didn't have the guts to do anything about it at the time, but, boy, I
    am so much smarter than you now, that I'm willing to share my
    brilliance with you.  This way you won't make the same mistake, because
    I told you not to."
    
    He's clearing his conscience and making bucks a t the same time.  If
    it's true that he's going to spend the money from the book on a group
    that helps relations between us and Viet Nam, then he is more
    disgusting than even I thought, and that would be hard.
    
    You like him, you think he's got something to say, then buy his book. 
    don't try to justify his previous or current actions.  He's a creep and
    anyone who buys his junk is either niave, stupid or unable to recognize
    a sham when it's put in front of you.
    

I would at least have to agree that his plans to contribute some
portion of the proceeds to "an organization working to improve
relationships between the US and Vietnam" is a goal without merit
in the eyes of the majority of Americans. I just don't see it as
being high on our list of priorities.

    viet-

    SNARF!

    Why is it so important to improve our relationship with Viet Nam?
    
    

    > First of all, McNamara could have made a very simple statement and
    > worked with the various intelligence agencies and state, etc to share
    > his knowledge.  He did not have to write a book.  If he wanted to help
    > this country avoid the same mistakes, then he had an unlimited number
    > of possibilities open to him.  writing a book is probably the least
    > effective of all courses he could have chosen.
    
    This does not compute.
    
    Intelligent people transmit information across generations by books,
    Rocush.  Working with intelligence agencies is useless as soon as the
    current generation is gone.  Ever read The Education of Henry Adams?
    How about Profiles in Courage?  Or Six Crises?  Adams, Kennedy, and
    Nixon all had the background to appreciate and value the method of
    passing on their experiences to future generations through that media. 
    So does McNamara.
    
    > You like him, 
    
    not much
    
    > you think he's got something to say, then buy his book. 
    
    I do, and I did.
    
    > don't try to justify his previous or current actions.  
    
    Nobody is trying to justify his previous actions.  But his current
    actions don't deserve your knee-jerk calumny.
    
    > He's a creep and anyone who buys his junk is either niave, stupid 
    > or unable to recognize a sham when it's put in front of you.
    
    or isn't ruled by knee-jerks.
    
    DougO

    >Why is it so important to improve our relationship with Viet Nam?
         
    Maybe because they suffered even more than we did from our mistakes?
    
    It happens to be true.
    
    DougO

I thought that the North Vietnamese came in and fixed all that for
Uncle Ho after we left?

    .104  That's what I thought ;-}
    
    I'm not saying it wouldn't be beneficial to work out some rela-
    tionship with VN, but there are other matters I would have ahead
    of it on my "Things That Are IMPORTANT To Do List".
    
    There have been much said about cooperation regarding MIAs etc,
    most of it has led to nothing (with few exceptions).
    
    

    
    RE: DougO
    
    Do you know if he's giving all of his profits away? Or a portion?
    
    If he keeps even a penny, its blood money, pure and simple.
    
    Paul
    

    >Do you know if he's giving all of his profits away? Or a portion?
    
    No, I don't know.  The news clip I saw was vague.
    
    >If he keeps even a penny, its blood money, pure and simple.
    
    Never written a book, have you?
    
    DougO

    
    
    I don't understand why the obsession with MIA's from the Vietnam era. 
    I mean, I understand the obsession with finding out what happened to
    our troops, but weren't there (and are still) more people unaccounted
    for from Korea and other wars?
    
    
    Mike

    
    re: 380.108
    
    >I don't understand why the obsession with MIA's from the Vietnam era.
     
    Any obsession I have is due to the fact I may know some of them.
    Guys I know that didn't come back from a mission, but whose bodies
    weren't found even though we looked for them.  Kinda makes you wonder 
    where they are. 
      

    Re: 102
    
    Oh, I see.  Unless someone writes a book there is no way for the
    organizations that are responsible for conducting national policy, and
    particularly war, can ever learn about the errors of a previous
    generation.  That defense of this book is hollow.
    
    The simple fact of the matter is a very large number of people were
    aware of the mistakes being made at the time.  since then even more
    people know how stupid McNamara and Johnson et al were in the conduct
    of this war.  There is nothing to be learned that isn't already known,
    other than some of the discussions, etc that took place.  If your
    interested in learning about those discussions, fine, but this book
    adds nothing that future generations need to know about how he screwed
    up the war.
    
    OBTW, this is not a knee-jerk reaction as you want to claim.  I guess
    consistently using that term makes you feel better, but since you don't
    have a clue, feel free to continue to label me as a knee-jerk.  You
    just keep re-affirming my opinion of your thought processes.  For your
    enlightenment, which is probably a waste of time, I have felt this way
    about McNamara since the 60s and this revelation on his part only
    confirms the contempt I held for him then.  If 30+ years is knee-jerk,
    then guilty as charged.
    
    I'd suggest you get a life if this is the best you can do.
    

    
    re: .103
    
    >Maybe because they suffered even more than we did from our mistakes?
    
    Poor babies....
    
    Musta been why they established all those neat little "Re-Education
    Camps"... To learn all about the suffering the Great Satan inflicted
    upon them...
    

    
    
    RE: .109  Perhaps you ought to read the rest of the reply.
    
    
    Mike

    > Oh, I see.  Unless someone writes a book there is no way for the
    > organizations that are responsible for conducting national policy, and
    > particularly war, can ever learn about the errors of a previous
    > generation.  That defense of this book is hollow.
    
    I didn't say there's no other way.  You had previously said there was
    no justification *at* *all* for the writing of the book- as though it
    were a heinous crime.  Sorry, it isn't- it is a time-honored method of
    transmitting information.  So what if there are other methods?  That
    one is certainly legitimate.  I can't believe this even needs saying.
    
    >    The simple fact of the matter is a very large number of people were
    > aware of the mistakes being made at the time.  since then even more
    > people know how stupid McNamara and Johnson et al were in the conduct
    > of this war.  There is nothing to be learned that isn't already known,
    > other than some of the discussions, etc that took place.  If your
    > interested in learning about those discussions, fine, but this book
    > adds nothing that future generations need to know about how he screwed
    > up the war.
    
    The discussions and the thought processes behind them, and the timing
    of the events that drove the decisions, and how the mistakes were made, 
    are exactly what he, and only he and others who were involved, can 
    provide.  I consider that more than 'nothing'.
    
    > You just keep re-affirming my opinion of your thought processes.
    
    From a guy who needs to have the legitimacy of books explained, I guess
    this doesn't bother me too much.
    
    DougO
    

    On an emotional basis, the idea of McNamara writing a book seems to be
    an attempt to profit from other peoples' deaths. But if McNamara is
    already loaded and is giving the money to a worthy cause, then the
    profit motive may be discounted and consideration given to other
    motivations behind the book. As Doug says, there is opportunity to
    learn here, particularly given the fact that the man was right in the
    thick of things. Perhaps if an effort is made to examine the whys and
    wherefores of the decision making process we can begin to understand
    how it all happened. And maybe that can help us prevent it from
    recurring. Still, the man leaves a bad taste in many mouths, and this
    needs to be recognized as well.

    
    re: 112
    
    You're right Mike.  It didn't sink in when I read it.
    
    al
    

    You'll have to excuse some of us for remaining skeptical and/or
    bitter upon witnessing the eagerly-offered media parade of aging
    ogres and their sobbing atonements.
    
    I believe in having the principles and the integrity to do the right
    thing the first time.  It is possible, after all.
    
    Chris

    
    
    I understand, Al.  I'm sorry for your losses, I hope and pray that they
    find out what happened to these folks.  
    
    
    
    Mike 

    
    
    Maybe the profits will go to buy "re-education" books for all those
    happy campers....
    

    
    RE: .107  ...Never written a book, have you?
    
    No, I haven't. Have you?
    
    I think his book can be historically useful and I don't begrudge him
    writing a book, per se. BUT, if he personally keeps any profits
    (expenses yes, profits no) then he is earning profit on the backs of
    dead and maimed people. People he put into their early grave. That
    would be disgusting.
    
    Maybe he is giving it all away (above expenses). I don't know. But I
    think the money issue pertains to the man's character and integrity.
    
    Paul
    
    
    

    >No, I haven't. Have you?
        
    Not for want of trying.  I find it difficult to achieve a sustained
    level of output that meets with my own quality standards.  Insistence
    that authors shouldn't profit from such labors are anti-capitalist, to
    say the least.
    
    DougO

    
    i don't think McN wrote the book to profit per se. 
    people usually write books for scholarly or vanity reasons.
    
    he doesn't really need the money as much as he needed the
    catharsis.
    
    however, it stikes me as very insensitive to the veterans to
    come back and say we were all fools 25 or 30 years ago for 
    going (and not thumbing our noses or burning our draftcards).
    
    this disrespect will haunt us the next time theres a "good fight"
    in the offing against a "Hitler" or other suitable revileable.
    

    
    RE: .120
    
    Just to clarify, I think it is most appropriate for authors to profit
    from their work. But in this limited instance, for this particular
    book, by this particular author, for reasons I and others have stated,
    a monetary profit would be obscene. 
    
    Now, if you every write a book, I hope you make a million bucks! 
    
    Paul 
    
    

    I have read "Mc's" book, and I have my own opinion, which I won't go
    into;  But, what I would like to offer is another book.  This might
    help those who "like" McNamara's book or ideology or whatever.
    
    This book is Written by LTC. Hackworth, Titled "About Face";
    after reading this, it might give one an understanding why people
    refer to McNamara's book as blood money.
    
    
    Sin-te-da
    
    Father Served Proudly, 67-68 and 68-69.

    Re: 113
    
    Once again you show your uncanny ability to ignore the context of a
    response and focus on a non-issue.  I have never claimed that writing a
    book is not a good way to transmit information or preserve thought for
    a future generation.  My point was, and I beleive you were fully aware
    of it, was that this book, by this man was not written for the noble
    purposes you claim.  I twas also not written to preserve information or
    convey thoughts.
    
    If McNamara really thought that how foreign involvements can lead to
    serious consequences should be communicated tot hose who make tose
    policies, then he has the contacts and resources to do so.
    
    All this book is a very poor attempt to somehow clear his concience and
    try to point out others resposnibility in this issue.  All your
    attempts tot the contrary do not change the fact this this was a poorly
    diguised attempt to clear is reputation now that he's in the twilight
    of his years.
    
    You can raise ll sorts of irrelavent side issues, but you can not
    change the basic point.  He was wrong then and is wrong now.
    

    	In my opinion McNamara is attempting to atone for what he now knows
    to be his own mistakes and stupidity! The problem is that he should
    know that his efforts are much too little, way to late, and at the
    expense of inflicting much pain on others( many of whom are the same
    people to whom he and his political cronies caused great pain with
    their original "Folly.")
    
    	In other words, McNamara is attempting to "scratch his own scabs"
    by clawing at the backs of others, others who still carry the scars
    from the Viet Nam war.
    
    	For those who wish to learn about the mistakes of Viet Nam, the
    story is out there and can be studied, lessons can be learned. When
    McNamara could have added to this discussion and aided the cause, he
    refused and remained silent. There is very little that he can
    constructively add now. 
    
    	McNamara be damned.

    After his Today Show interview; the network contacted his publisher.
    Publisher said Mr. McN wishes the information about profits of the
    book to "remain private".
    
    

    Re: 125
    
    Great reply.  Thanks.
    

    Rusk Didn't Waver on Viet Policy 
    
    Rich Rusk 
    
    TWO DECADES after the American withdrawal from Vietnam, 27 years since
    my father, former Secretary of State Dean Rusk, left office, the
    Vietnam War explodes again in the national consciousness, thanks to
    Robert McNamara's new book. 
    
    ``This is the book I planned never to write, wrote McNamara in ``In
    Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam.'' But at age 79, he
    changed his mind. ``We must tell the American people why their
    government and its leaders behaved as we did.'' He implores us all ``to
    learn from that experience.'' 
    
    I first met Robert McNamara in January 1961 at the swearing-in ceremony
    for John Kennedy's new cabinet. I was a kid of 14. I met him again in
    1985 at his office in Washington, while researching my dad's memoirs.
    Our paths crossed once more on a Sunday night two weeks ago, this time
    on a radio talk show in Sacramento. Bob McNamara wasn't on the air, but
    Ron Kovic was. On Christmas Eve in 1964, Kovic and I rode a Greyhound
    bus from boot camp to Washington, two young Marines going home for the
    holidays. I had forgotten the bus ride and Ron Kovic.  He wasn't yet
    famous. Kovic hadn't gone to Nam, been horribly wounded or written
    ``Born on the Fourth of July.'' ``Hey, Ron,'' I asked that Sunday,
    ``what's it like having Oliver Stone and Tom Cruise make a  movie about
    your life?'' 
    
    ``Incredible!'' said Kovic. That was the easy question. The tough one
    was asked by radio host Phil Angelides: ``Does it help with the
    healing?'' Angelides queried us. ``Should McNamara have written this
    book?'' 
    
    I can't speak for Bob McNamara. But I know something about my father's
    views. He too was an ``architect'' of the Vietnam War. Critics dubbed
    it ``Dean Rusk's war'' as much a ``Robert McNamara's war.'' 
    
    ``It was `Ho Chi Minh's war,' '' my father always insisted. 
    
    My dad remembered Ron Kovic and his Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
    They had hurled their medals from the steps of the Capitol in angry
    protest. It was a searing moment. ``They compelled our attention,'' my
    dad said. But they didn't change his mind about Vietnam. 
    
    My dad's staunchness in continuing to support the war won him grudging
    respect as the years went by. But somehow, failing to change his mind
    became a kind of virtue. And in this same curious alchemy, changing
    one's mind -- that is, McNamara -- became a vice. For me, my dad's
    resoluteness in supporting a doomed cause was neither good nor bad,
    just  part of the continuing tragedy of Vietnam. As much as I loved my
    father and revere his memory, honesty compels me to say more. I have no
    secret wisdom with which to unravel these mysteries. But in this son's
    perspective, one thing was never acknowledged by my father, McNamara,
    McGeorge Bundy, Clark Clifford, George Ball or any of those with whom I
    talked. Let's call it the ``psychology of command decision-making.'' 
    
    By the mid and late '60s, Americans by the thousands were dying in
    Vietnam. My dad and McNamara made decisions that sent young men to
    their deaths. They had the blood of thousands on their consciences.
    Once American troops were committed, there would be no turning back,
    goes the syndrome. And thus began the process by which ``one dead
    American begets another dead American,'' wrote David Halberstam. 
    
    From a son's perspective, I often wondered: What choice did my dad
    have, once the buildup had begun and the coffins started coming home to
    small towns all across America? What choice did he have, this decent,
    humane father of mine to whom the sanctity of human life was
    all-important? His taciturn nature, which served him well in
    negotiating with heads of state, ill-prepared him for the wrenching,
    introspective soul-shattering journey that a true reappraisal of
    Vietnam policy would have involved. 
    
    For all my father's strength and courage and intelligence, changing his
    mind on Vietnam was something he just couldn't do. Although trained for
    high office, he was unprepared for such a journey, for admitting that
    thousands of lives might have been lost in vain. He couldn't do it. He
    just couldn't do it. That is how I saw it. And that is what I read to
    him in our final draft of his memoirs. 
    
    ``That's bull- - - -! my father roared. In our 48 years together I had
    never heard him use the phrase. It may well have been. And maybe I was
    practicing ``pop psychology,'' as Pop suggested. But the fact remains:
    of that small circle who made Vietnam policy in the '60s, only one was
    able to stare into the abyss, challenge his own assumptions and
    confront that horrible question: ``What if I am wrong?'' 
    
    That man was Robert McNamara. He may have been weak in conversion,
    irresponsible in pressing his doubts. But a shattered Bob McNamara did
    try to change policy. He lost that argument within the Johnson
    administration, out of public view, and resigned -- or was fired -- in
    1967. 
    
    There was another panelist on that Sunday talk show who thought
    McNamara had done right -- an ex-Marine who also knows something about
    sin, confession and courage -- and laying bare one's soul. Thirty-one
    years ago, we rode a Greyhound bus together: Ron Kovic. 
    
    ``Over the long run,'' Kovic said, ``McNamara's book and his comments
    will promote healing.'' 
    
    ``As Americans, we must all embrace McNamara.'' 
    
    ``We must all welcome him home.'' 
    
    Published 5/1/95 in San Francisco Chronicle

I asked a friend of mine (who found out around the time I first
met him  -- about 20 years ago now -- that he suffered from Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder Syndrome), who's a 'Nam vet what he thought of McNamara's
announcement.

He told me long ago that Viet-Nam was a chess-game for undefined/ego stakes.

His response was rather bitter-toned.

"There ain't nothin' any of them can say to me".

    
   .<<< Note 380.116 by DECWIN::RALTO "It's a small third world after all" >>>
    .                  -< Tell it to the guy at the gates >-
.
.    You'll have to excuse some of us for remaining skeptical and/or
.    bitter upon witnessing the eagerly-offered media parade of aging
.     ogres and their sobbing atonements.
.    
.    I believe in having the principles and the integrity to do the right
.    thing the first time.  It is possible, after all.
.    
.    Chris

    
    Doesn't the guy at the gate work for THE master of atonement and
    forgiveness?

    >> Doesn't the guy at the gate work for THE master of atonement and
    >> forgiveness?
    
    Yes, that was my point.  I question the motivation of old guys
    like McNamara, rapidly and fearfully approaching death, suddenly
    doing a 180 and offering pathetic atonements.  I wonder who they're
    really offering the atonements to: us, or is it really pre-damage
    control?  If it's to us, you can believe that it's far, far too late
    to convince (some/many of) us.  If it's to the "guy upstairs", then
    he can save it for that momentous occasion.
    
    One can almost see him babbling at the gates, trying to explain
    why he treated that vet in Boston so badly, even after his alleged
    "reform".  He hasn't seen the light yet, but he will.
    
    In other words, let God forgive him, which He will.  I'm not going to.
    
    Chris

    REUTER Tuesday November 7 12:41 AM EST

    Robert McNamara Returns To Vietnam

    HANOI (Reuter) - Former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara returned
    to Vietnam Tuesday two decades after the end of a war he helped shape
    and which he now admits was ``terribly wrong.''

    As rains from Typhoon Angela lashed Hanoi's Noi Bai airport, a
    commercial airliner carrying McNamara touched down just a few hundred
    yards from the patchwork of wartime bomb craters which still litters
    the final runway approach.

    McNamara, 79, a key strategist and architect of the Vietnam war, did
    not speak to journalists as he left the airport by limousine for Hanoi.

    However, as his car pulled up at a hotel he told reporters he had come
    to Vietnam to heal old wounds. ``(I came here) to see if Vietnam and
    the U.S. could draw lessons from what was a tragedy for both of us,''
    he said.

    McNamara's three-day visit to Hanoi, which formally begins Wednesday,
    will see him come face to face with a country which still bears many
    scars of the conflict.

    He refused Tuesday to disclose details of his agenda. Vietnamese
    officials said earlier the trip would be closed to media coverage
    because of ``U.S. sensitivities surrounding the visit.''

    But a foreign ministry representative said McNamara would meet senior
    officials including his former adversary, General Vo Nguyen Giap, the
    chief strategist of Vietnam's victory.

    McNamara in April published his memoirs, admitting a degree of guilt
    for a conflict which in the 1960s became known as McNamara's War. He
    resigned in 1968 after overseeing the U.S. military buildup in
    Indochina.

    In the book he said Washington had been ``wrong, terribly wrong'' to
    have continued the conflict beyond 1963.

    In 1973, when the United States pulled out of Vietnam, 223,748 South
    Vietnamese soldiers had been killed. North Vietnamese and Viet Cong
    deaths were estimated at 440,000 and about four million civilians -- 10
    percent of Vietnam's population at the time -- had been killed or
    injured.

    More than 58,180 Americans were killed with some 2,200 listed as
    missing in action. Some 300,000 Vietnamese are listed as missing in
    action.

    During his visit McNamara will discuss details of a proposed
    U.S.-Vietnamese conference on the war expected to be held next year.

    
    
    I wonder if he'll be given a grand tour and all... and comment on all
    the progress they've made with their re-education camps....
    
    Maybe an interview with a "model" prisoner...er I mean student...