Why do some of the same people who strongly condemn George W. Bush for his current actions in Iraq give a free pass to LBJ for his role in escalating our troop involvement in Vietnam? |
before offering an opinion, i have a question: how many people--no matter what their position on anything else--other than this woman and, possibly, her associates have anything close to a favorable view of lbj's prosecution of the conflict in vietnam? what percentage of this complete set of johnson war fans opposes bush's iraq war?
if there was a national gathering of the latter with each and every one of em in attendance, you think there'd be any need to rent more than 100 chairs?
difficult as it may be to imagine--especially by those who've known nothing but the relatively recent kinda strict partisan regimentation without which it's believed electoral victory is impossible--lbj's war was opposed first, fiercest and almost exclusively by members of his own party.
a small but truly liberal faction of the media also took on the president (believe it or don't, being considered mainstream was a goal for much of the media). all that whining about bush being brutalized by the press would be amusing if it weren't so annoying and overly dramatic. compared to lbj, bush has barely been baby-bashed. no nasty popular songs, no stage companies performing updated shakespearean tragedies in which macbeth's castle became the whitehouse, not even a hint of suggestion dubya mighta engaged in neck-rophelia on airforce 1 following jfk's assassination. all of which came from those considered--and who considered themselves--to be on the president's side of the aisle.
i guess it's possible someone's working to rehabilitate lbj's role as war president but i'd not expect any traction for a long while--if ever.
that's the one area in which lbj and gwb may prove to be most similar. neither of em may stop stinkin...ever.