You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 20

PLAYS: 9

(Secretary of State Dean Rusk, 1968 - Up to his eyeballs in it)

With the current situation in Afghanistan getting to the confrontation point, I was reminded of another situation the U.S. got into with Vietnam. Some four years after the infamous Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, questions were started to be raised over what was our plan there and how long was it going to take before we got out of there.

When an Aid request came along with a rumored increase of troop strength by 100,000-200,000, the Senate was starting to wane in their support, with J. William Fulbright being the most vocal during his questioning of Secretary of State Dean Rusk.

J. William Fulbright: “I do not mean to suggest of course, that I now agree with the course of action we are following in Vietnam. On the contrary, my doubts about the wisdom of this course of action have grown, and I am more than ever convinced that it is wrong, and that our present policies in Vietnam have had, and will have effects both abroad and at home that are nothing short of disastrous. Some members of this committee share my opinion. Others do not. But as I have said Mister Secretary, that while those of us who do not agree with our present policies in Vietnam, believe that it is our duty as United States Senators to give voice to the objections we feel in our minds and in our hearts.”

Unfortunately, it would grind on for another seven years before it came to an end.

Do the words deja-vu come to mind?

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 27

PLAYS: 17

(Nguyen Cao Ky and LBJ in 1966 - Tea leaves in the eye of the beholder)

Since the talk this week centers on the endless war in Afghanistan, I thought it might be a good idea to visit another endless war from another time; Vietnam.

Like Afghanistan, Vietnam wasn't instantly met with derision and questions over our involvement. Like Iraq though, we were also sold a somewhat leaky bill of goods and goaded into pledging lives and untold millions over an involvement that had no timetable and no real plan.

The difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is Iraq bears some resemblance to an organized country. Where Afghanistan is one big grab-bag of tribes, sects and factions that have been over-run, quasi-colonized and fought over for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Just like Vietnam.

In 1966 we were still getting our feet wet in Vietnam, having gone from "advisers" to "troops on the ground" in a little over a year. Support and the "domino theory" were still very much alive and our presence increased on an almost daily basis.

But also in 1966 there were the seeds of questions being sown - what was the plan? How long was it going to take? When it is supposed to end? How many troops are needed? What really was the government of South Vietnam all about?

Just like Afghanistan.

And so on June 21, 1966 Eric Severeid delivered a fifteen minute commentary on our state of siege in Vietnam.

Eric Severeid: “A crucial question: Whether our resistance in Vietnam is preventing the spread of Chinese dominance in other Asian countries, through their propaganda infiltration and subversion. The Administration points to Indonesia, where the powerful Chinese-inspired Communist apparatus was smashed not long ago. That would never have happened, we like to think were we not there in Vietnam. If this is true, all of us would feel very much better about this war in Vietnam. My personal opinion is that it’s not true.”

Needless to say, those questions only grew in number and intensity over the next several years as our justifications grew less and less feasible. It would seem we are heading in that direction again.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 34

PLAYS: 10

(LBJ at The UN - selling The Great Society was one thing - Selling Vietnam was something else)

When President Johnson addressed the United Nations General Assembly on the occasion of its 20th anniversary in June 1965, he had very little trouble selling his concept of The Great Society to the rest of the world. It was when the subject of Vietnam and Southeast Asia came up that ears suddenly turned deaf and support dwindled. Support for the war was rapidly fading in the U.S. and protests were mounting in intensity on an almost daily basis as the war escalated to no seeming end.

So it was with mixed results that President Johnson made his case to the world body.

LBJ: “ We in this country are committing ourselves to great tasks in our own Great Society. We’re committed to narrowing the gap between promise and performance. Between equality and law and equality in fact. Between opportunity for the numerous well to do and the still too numerous poor. Between education for the successful and education for all of the people. It is no longer a community or a nation or a continent. But a whole generation of mankind for whom our promises must be kept and kept within the next two decades. And if those promises are not kept, it will be less and less possible to keep them for any. And that is why, on this anniversary I would call upon all member nations to rededicate themselves to wage together an international war on poverty.

War on Poverty sounded good - War in Southeast Asia - not good.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1377)

PLAYS: (5521)

Howard Kurtz is still playing water carrier for the Bush administration and their WMD lies used to justify invading Iraq and when called out for it by Daniel Ellsberg who says he'll name names as to who in the Bush administration knew better what does he do? Why try to change the subject of course!

Ellsberg is the subject of a new documentary The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers which debuts this week in New York, Los Angeles and at the Toronto Film Festival.

KURTZ: Do you think that the Obama administration is getting as much pressure from the press as it should, particularly compared to previous administrations, say the Bush administration?

ELLSBERG: None. No administration has gotten the pressure that it should from the press on this point. We got into Iraq with as much deceptions as occurred in Vietnam, a generation earlier. A performance by the press no better than we saw of pressing behind the lies of the administration than we got during the Johnson administration when I was in; nor did we get a single person within the administration, the Bush administration now, who saw that the adventure into Iraq was going to hurt our counter-terrorism efforts, hurt our security, and was violating the Constitution in terms of treaties. Another example would be treaties on torture and our domestic laws on torture. People who saw that clearly, not one of them leaked to Congress, or to the press.

(CROSS TALK)

KURTZ: Obviously, there were conflicting opinions and conflicting evidence, for example on WMDs. But let me come back to this.

ELLSBERG: No, pardon me.

KURTZ: Go ahead.

ELLSBERG: When it came to lying -- when it came to lying about the nature of the evidence that the evidence was unequivocal, that was as much of a lie as saying that evidence of the attack on August 4th, on our destroyers, was unequivocal. Yes, there was --

KURTZ: You're comparing the Bush's building of the case to go to war in Iraq, with Lyndon Johnson's Tonkin Gulf war incident, just to be clear.

ELLSBERG: I am, indeed. It's exactly the same in the performance not only by the president, but by all of the people who knew that it was a disaster. And I could name names there, if you want.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 762

PLAYS: 462

(Rep. John McCormack (D-Mass) - Rep. Hugh Scott (R. Penn.) - lots of love in that room . . .of a kind.)

In case you were wondering if the cantankerous nature of Capitol Hill was some phenomenon of recent years, let me put you at ease by saying no, it's always been that way.

This broadcast, part of the American Forum Of The Air series from July 25, 1954, features Representative John McCormack (D-Mass.) and Representative Hugh Scott (R.Penn.) discussing what the 83rd Congress has accomplished, just as the House and Senate go on their August recess. The subjects range from taxes to the end of the Korean conflict and the bubbling unrest in Southeast Asia - Vietnam in particular.

McCormick: “ There’s a truce made that could’ve been made far better a year, year and a half prior to the time the truce was made. As the result of it, the Chinese Reds were relieved of their commitments in North Korea and they were able to drive down into Indochina and they were able to help the Communist forces in Indochina. Now coming to the Indochina truce . . . .

Scanlon (interviewer): “Do you think the war should have continued Congressman?” –

Moderator: “Hold it . . . .”

McCormick: “None of us . . .we’re not agreed to . . .we’re not satisfied with that. I’m satisfied that England and France have some kind of deals on that are not for our best interest. I’m suspicious of England and France in connection with what’s going on. I think you and I probably would agree pretty much in that respect. I’m very suspicious about this increase in trade which Mr. Stassen has permitted to go on with the Communist bloc as a peace gesture

Hugh Scott: “ Before you change the subject is there any shooting war going on anywhere in the world today, was my statement . . .

McCormick: “Do you think there’s peace in the world today? There’s certainly not peace in the world today. All I know is, that there’s a couple of million more unfortunate people in Vietnam who are now under the Communists, about a million of them happen to be communicants of the Catholic Church of which you and I are also communicants and I can imagine what kind of rough living they’re going to have under the Communists when they consolidate, the liquidation process they’re going to go through, and I hope there’ll be a good pact established down there that will be able to stop the Communists. But I am fearful there will be extreme difficulty in that respect. I’m hopeful and I will join in a bi-partisan way that will bring any efforts to bring about a pact in Southeast Asia that will stop the Communist on-rush.”

Well . . .more prophetic words weren't spoken much that year. But it did signal what would become our endless Vietnam odyssey soon enough.

McCormack and Scott spar and agree on very little, but they hold their ground. In the end it provides an interesting insight as to the historic nature of government and how discourse can work.

At least they were upfront about it.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 174

PLAYS: 75

(A little close to home)

I think I heard this song once when it first came out in 1970 and only on an FM station. Needless to say, it didn't race up the charts.

From the best I can figure out, Fresh weren't actually a real band, but the brainchild of producers Ray Singer and Simon Napier-Bell, producers responsible for a lot of 60's hits in Britain. The musicians listed were Roger Chantler, drums Kevin Francis, bass and Bob Gorman, guitar. There were only two albums issued by this "group": Fresh Out Of Borstal and Fresh Today. And then nothing.

So Stoned In Saigon was an anti-war anthem that came out just around the time anti-war sentiment was at a high. In 1970 we had the invasion Cambodia and the shootings at Kent State and word back in the states was drug use was rampant in Vietnam.

So needless to say, I think the song's heart was in the right place, but it's sentiment was probably a little too close to home for the casual Rock Radio listener.

In any event - here it is.

[Ed. note: Please welcome to the C&L team our old friend Ian Welsh, whose work from the Agonist and FDL many of you many know. Ian will be writing whatever he chooses, but that usually means economics and international politics.]

It's Memorial Day. I gather for many it's just another long weekend, but I know that for many it's what Remembrance Day is for Canadians like myself: a day to remember those who have died in war. I won't say "died to protect our freedom" or any such trite BS, because with few exceptions, most wars had nothing to do with protecting anyone's freedom, but they did die, nonetheless, for us.

Their blood is on our hands, sticky and wet, and it will never dry. Why?

Because we live in democracies. Because we elected the leaders who sent them to war. Whether you think those wars are justified, or not, at the end of the day, we bear the collective guilt of their deaths. They died due to the decisions we made, the society we live in.

Oh, we can say "I did everything I could to oppose the war", whether that's Iraq or Vietnam, or some other war. But even if that's true, well, you failed, didn't you? (Didn't I?) And so off went the young men and women, and they died, or they were maimed, or their brain case got knocked around and they came back shaking, and they wake up screaming at night, and they can't control their emotions and they'll never be the same again.

It's one of the ironies of democracy that we're all responsible, collectively, and yet each of us, individually, can say "but not me, I voted against him" or "I protested against that policy". And because it's true, each of us can feel, in the end, that the deaths and suffering caused by our society, whether in war, or through a horrific medical system, or through abuses in the penal system, aren't our fault.

But is it true? Or is it true instead, that we failed, that we support the system with both our consent and our tax dollars, and that we are therefor complicit in what it does?

I don't know. But I do know this, on this Memorial day, even if it's not a Canadian holiday, I'm thinking of those who died, both soldiers and civilian.

And at the very least, I know I failed.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 139

PLAYS: 28

Less than a month before Korea, years before Vietnam and decades before Iraq, Memorial Day was about remembering those who served and died during the Wars previous, back to the Civil War. The Second World War had only ended less than five years before, the task of rebuilding was still going on. The upheavals and changes were new with words like "Right Of Self-Determination" and "Cold War" recent additions to the lexicon.

Everything was in a state of change, nobody really knew where any of it was headed. The only thing certain were fields of white crosses, evidence that sacrifice was the constant - no matter how much things changed, or how much they remained the same.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 133

PLAYS: 17

(Handed a rather overflowing plate in 1961)

With all the recent reflection on Presidential 100 days and crisis management, I was reminded just how much the Kennedy Administration had been handed in the area of Foreign policy and crisis management in their first 100 days.

Senator J. William Fulbright was Chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, overseeing a host of hotspots, including the Congo, Berlin, Laos (in fact the whole Southeast Asia region) and Cuba. Ironically, five days before this Meet The Press was recorded, the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion took place - a bungled attempt at toppling the Castro regime on the part of the CIA causing a big black eye in our policy towards Latin America in general.

The deck was pretty stacked and there was no shortage of fires to put out. Fulbright was a big advocate of education and foreign assistance as a means of overcoming the increasing Communist influence in these regions. He was no advocate of armed conflict, particularly in SouthEast Asia, citing the French excursion and terrain as reasons to avoid it. His solution to funding the campaign of education and Foreign Aid was probably tainted by those two most lethal words in politics, "higher taxes".

This Meet The Press, from April 30, 1961 features Fulbright answering a battery of questions from Lawrence Spivak and Company.

Lively.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 96

PLAYS: 45

(Kent State - April 4, 1970 - peace lay gunned down in the confusion.)

Probably as much as Altamont became the defining moment of antithesis to the Woodstock euphoria of 1969, the shootings at Kent State probably defined its own disillusioned view of protest, one that began in earnest and with idealism in 1964 with the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. It came to a crashing halt here and probably did the most in speeding up the end to the Vietnam nightmare.

The reason for the Kent State protest was simple - it was a reaction to our invasion of Cambodia which began on April 29, 1970 - signaling an escalation to our involvement in South East Asia, at a time when we were told by a campaigning Richard Nixon in 1968, that an end to the war in Vietnam was in our sights. As was previously the case, we were lied to and we could see the war stretching on for years more, if not decades more.

Protests were held at college campuses all over the country. It was at Kent State in Ohio where it got violent, with a detachment of National Guard troops firing live ammunition into a crowd of protesters. Prior to this point, police and most National Guard used primarily rubber bullets or blanks, or in the case of shotguns, salt pellets rather than buckshot. In 1970 that seemed to have changed (I hate to say I know from personal experience, but I do).

When the deaths of the students at Kent State reached the national media it sent waves of shock throughout the country prompting, at least in California, Governor Reagan to go on the air and declare all college and university campuses closed for the better part of a week. With an air that was a bit reminiscent of his handling of the PATCO strike years later, Reagan cast doubt that the students killed by the guard were actually students, but "outside agitators" as he eluded in this address. If anything, it helped polarize an already divided situation that much more. The end result being an inquiry into the causes that brought about the death of people innocently protesting something they didn't believe in.

And thirty-nine years later . . . . .

(Governor Reagan reacts to Kent State the best way he knew how - blaming agitators.)

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 129

PLAYS: 63

(At the end of 9,000 days it looked like this . . .)

It was the war that nobody thought would ever end. But eventually it did, and suddenly. Even though the Vietnam war from the U.S. standpoint was over, at least on paper in January of 1973, the conflict between North and South kept going even as American troops were being withdrawn and our presence scaled back down to adviser (more or less ending where we began in 1950). On March 10 1975, North Vietnam launched an offensive and quickly moved south with very little resistance advancing towards Saigon. President Thieu resigned and newly installed President Duong van Minh declared a cease fire and an end to hostilities.

And just like that - it was over.

America woke up to the news on the morning of the 29th, as bulletin after bulletin jammed the airwaves saying that South Vietnam had surrendered and the last U.S. Embassy was finally closed and evacuated and dependents were being airlifted to waiting offshore warships. Panic broke out as North Vietnamese tanks rolled in with thousands of people trying to leave.

And back in the U.S. the post-mortem began that continues even today, with attempts at using the Vietnam experience in the same breath as Iraq and Afghanistan, as illogical as that may seem. Different wars, different peoples, different ideologies entirely

Here is a one-hour glimpse into that day as it happened - this particular day 34 years ago.

November 10, 2008 CNN

Be sure to also check out Bob Geiger's "A Vet's Message To The GOP on Veterans Day -- Shove It":

... Veterans benefits are earned -- and they matter.

Which is why I get so disgusted whenever I see all the faux military-loving Republicans turning up on Veterans Day with their flowery pronouncements of how much we Vets mean to them when they prove at every turn that they really don’t give a damn about the troops, Veterans or military families.

Of course, Exhibit A is Iraq and the Republican party's steadfast refusal to ever allow our troops to come permanently home to their families and their continued desire to keep them bogged down in a war for nothing. But I mention the G.I. Bill specifically because of the following samples of Republican hypocrisy we see every Veterans Day:

“On Veterans Day – and every day – we thank the men and women who have fought to keep us safe and free.” - Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

"We must remember the great debt that we owe veterans and members of the armed services who fight to maintain our freedom around the world. Throughout history, our soldiers have risked their lives to defend our freedom, and we must not forget their sacrifices." - Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

“Veterans Day is our opportunity to honor America’s veterans who have courageously served our country. These brave men and women have fought to keep our nation free and secure, and we thank them and their families for their service and sacrifice on our behalf.” - Senator Bob Corker (R-TN)

"So this day, perhaps more than any other day, is a time to honor them. We owe them our respect and profound gratitude." - Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

What's the common denominator in this crew? They all were among 22 Republicans who voted against the Post 9/11 G.I. Bill, authored by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) -- a highly-decorated Vietnam Veteran -- and passed with 75 votes on May 22nd of this year.

Be sure to read it all. It's chockful of damning information.