Are we too harsh on Bush? He stayed unlike Johnson in the Vietnam war who bailed out and abandoned the troops.

Question

Don't get me wrong, the Iraq war is beyond SNAFU but in March 1968 Johnson had 500,000 troops in the war, 30,000 dead, over 1000 American POWs and he announced he would not run. I was there and it was not easy seeing the CINC bail out when the troops had no parachute. It was Nixon who ended the war and brought back the POWs to the U.S.

I was there-it was Johnson-read a history book!

In March 1968 there were over 30,000 dead, the total KIA by the end of war was 50,000. I spent 4 years in Asia from the beginning in 1964 to 1969. Johnson was President the entire time I was there.He announced he would not run and left office in 1969 with the war raging. I never served under Nixon but credit where credit is due, he had the moxy to pull out the troops from a war which he did not start.

Answer 1

I'd suggest Robert McNamara's "Fog of War" for some insight on LBJ and Vietnam, but I'm not going to touch is since I don't think a comparison should be made to excuse GWB.

No, we aren't too harsh on Bush. Bush jumped into a situation with completely naive expectations and very likely 100% personal agenda. I'm going to defend him in saying that 90% of leaders probably have done the exact same thing in World History, but you know, he got caught. And if nothing else, getting CAUGHT throwing your troops' lives away with absolutely nothing to show for it is reason for contempt.

In the end though, people put him into office. American CItizens. Based on nothing more than a fear that the alternative would legalize gay marriage and cheapen the so-called "American Values."

True blame should be cast on our election process. We reward the mud-slingers that spend egregious amounts of money smearing opponents. Rather than intellect, ability, experience and integrity we base our decision on who can serve up the most drama. And when spending millions of dollars on a job that pays 200-300k a year is considered "normal" I'd contend something is wrong indeed.

But no, Bush can't be blamed. His second term was not so different from his first term, people knew what to expect and they re-elected. IF you want to blame someone though, pick Nader.

Answer 2

For crying out loud. You got the facts right. Johnson started the war, Nixon ended it. Ford merely implemented the last withdrawal after Congress yanked all funding and precipitated a crisis. Ignore the ignorance of the boneheads who don't realize they should be silent lest all the world know they are fools . Like the two answers before this one.

The questions is , are we too harsh on Bush? He does deserve credit for trying to finish what he started and not running away in the middle of the fight. But this is a war that was built on false premises, conducted on unfounded expectations and mired in incompetence at the top, which has detracted from the bravery and superb performance in the field. Which probably shows that the invisible bureaucracy is in control which hinders talent and courage all because some cowering top official is afraid to take responsibility for his or her actions

One thing is for sure we don't need any more Presidents from Texas!

Answer 3

Lol! The only "combat" Bush saw in the military was when he had a cavity filled at the dentist during his short stint in the PART TIME National Guard. He fought that cavity with valor and honor! He also fought a few hangovers. He is a wimp. The only thing he knows how to do is clear brush on his dumpy ranch in Texas. Big whoop!

Answer 4

Johnson may have bailed on the troops but what Bush is doing is far worst. By being narrow minded and pigheaded he is sending these men to die for no reason. I'm glad you brought up Vietnam because if our next president behaves the way Bush is this will be Vietnam all over again. I'm hoping for a Nixon at this point. Pull are men out and I won't even care if you rob us blind later.

Answer 5

This is confusing. "Johnson bailed" yet "Nixon ended the war?" Actually 50,000 troops dead. Nixon was elected because he vowed to end the war "with peace and honor". Strange, LBJ was a Texan, powerful, lots of big oil ties. McNamara said in "the Fog of War" Kennedy would not have escalated but wanted to pull out "advisors". And the Gulf of Tonkin, which led to LBJ's escalation, didn't happen-false intelligence, I guess.

No, we're not too hard on Bush!

Answer 6

I just find it quite interesting that after September 11, 2001, our country was all into going after the terrorists and kicking *** and taking names. But, now that the war has gone on for a long time, has cost a lot of money and many lives have been lost, everyone wants to quit. That's just not how it works.

Answer 7

Are the Americans used to such kind of Presidents. Does the American president have to lie , destroy, launch wars , kill innocents and criminals in one shot to please the American taste ? Should you have more than a Guantanamo? Do you still believe that your troops are still brave , respectful and fighting for RIGHT ?

Answer 8

Do you just make it up as you go along??? We left Viet Nam 4/30/1975 Gerald Ford was in office. So who do we "blame" Eisenhower for getting us involved?? Kennedy for keeping us there, Johnson for his ...hmmm...shall we call it 'SURGES' or Nixon for being such a putz as to get KICKED OUT OF OFFICE in the middle of the whole mess ...oh yeah, he is also the one that MADE THE DECISION to leave with our tails tucked....or shall it be poor old Ford.

Answer 9

penn 160

Iraq is not SNAFU, LBJ was, Nixon wasn't, and President Bush is Dead ON.

I was there too, and I am here as well.

This war is worth fighting, because it truly is the tip of the iceberg.

Answer 10

There is something to be said about cutting your losses. No need for reckless bravado or stubborness when there is no chance of winning in a situation like Iraq.