AUSTIN, Texas, Nov. 17, 2006
LBJ's Vietnam-Era Phone Tapes Released
In Newly Public Audio Files, Ex-President Discusses 'Commies' At NYT, Vietnam, Civil Rights
-
Photo
Former President Lyndon B. Johnson talks on the phone in this Jan. 10, 1964 White House photo. (AP, file)
-
Photo Essay
Vietnam Visit
In Hanoi for APEC summit, Bush becomes second U.S president to visit post-war Vietnam
-
Interactive
The Fall of Saigon
Revisit the final chapter of America's struggle in a decade-long war through pictures, maps, video and stories.
-
Interactive
Modern Presidents
Explore United States leaders from JFK to Barack Obama.
The recordings, released by the
In one conversation, Johnson blasted the “commies” he said ran the Times.
“They want to get out of Vietnam and yield it to them, and I don't think I can quite do that,” the president said.
At the time, as Defense Secretary Robert McNamara reported, there were 400,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam.
In another conversation, McNamara suggested waiting until after the midterm elections to announce a cap on the U.S. troop commitment in Vietnam. Johnson said little during that part of the conversation.
Johnson asked McNamara about the defense budget and supply shortages. McNamara told him there were shortages of a “new rifle” called the M-16, and shortages of some ammunition and rounds used to illuminate areas for night fighting. But McNamara said there were plenty of bombs — 265,000 tons of them, either in Southeast Asia or on the way.
“Frankly, we're going to just snow the place under with bombs,” McNamara said. “And I'm doing it purposely to make them cry, `Stop.'”
In a discussion about the war with former President Dwight Eisenhower, Johnson said he was “trying to win it just as fast as I can in every way that I know how.” He added: “I need all the help I can get.”
Eisenhower, who was president in the 1950s during the tail end of the Korean War, told Johnson that Vietnam was different: “Here is a war that is the most nasty and unpredictable that we've ever been in, and it's just as much political as military.”
In the midterm elections, the Democrats suffered numerous defeats in the House but maintained control of Congress.
Johnson sounded irritated with his lack of support among Southern governors, attributing it to his pursuit of civil rights legislation. He said 11 Southern states, including his home of Texas, were against him.
“I've got a good record, and I'm rather proud of it,” Johnson said. “The South is against civil rights. But I even think they think I've got to do it.”
©MMVI, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from U.S.
-
Video
Obama Wraps Up G8 Summit
-
Video
A Comeback For GM?
-
Video
Racism Charges At Swim Club
----
Janem4, if those who still do not know/remember what LBJ stood for, mistake him for a Republican, that would serve Bush right.
Both LBJ and Bush lied, lied and then lied some more about the basis of their military actions. Both ended up in a quagmire entirely of their own creation, because they insisted on using a military hammer for a diplomatic screwdriver.
The two are hard to confuse, unless a president believes he is politically infallible.
Both LBJ and Bush misused the country's security agencies as a political watchdog, monitoring conversations illegally for "national security" reasons. Both controlled the congress and the judiciary during their reigns of error.
In the wars which characterized the terms of each, both also condemned the press, but struggled to use it for their own ends (often successfully). Each accused the press of being unpatriotic, and each leaves a solid demerit in history for their horrible blunders in Vietnam and Iraq, respectively.
Did I mention both are Texas politicians?
----
Actually, Democrat Johnson "stayed the course", and kept that policy as long as he held office-- as opposed to Bush2, who told Stephanopoulos just recently, "We never have been 'stay the course' in this administration, George."
Also, you will be surprised to remember it was Nixon and Kissinger who reversed course on Vietnam, winding down the troop levels from LBJ days and bringing American boys home. But to finesse critics who condemned them for a "Cut and Run" policy, they called it, "Peace with Honor".
So, as you ponder what you mean by "cut and run", consider the GOP has more experience in this area, historically. Even the Korean War ended under Eisenhower, not Truman, and under mysterious circumstances. Technically, America is still at war with North Korea, so Eisenhower's truce is, more kindly, a "studied disengagement" from an active battle zone.
Likewise, even now, Bush2 changes his rationales about Iraq so often, he is all over the political map. First, WMDs were the reason for Iraq, and when not found, Iraq became a war to liberate Iraqis from themselves. Bush condemnation of "Cut and run" recently became "We never have been 'stay the course...'" Perhaps because Bush now understands he soon will need to "Cut and Run"? The partitioning of Iraq is one increasingly likely scenario for this to take place.
you can be counted on to set the record straight!