The war in Vietnam & Impeachable Presidential Lies

[Sebastian Dangerfield]

Three cheers for Peter's perspicacity here!  His rundown of the war being
a good refresher for some of us (and likely a good remedial course for
some others of us).  
I offer a bit of embellishment:

Peter writes, carefully:
>The war escalated in the first week of August 1964, when North
Vietnamese torpedo
>boats were reported to have attacked two U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of
>Tonkin. The U.S. Senate passed the so-called Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
on
>August 7 authorizing increased military involvement. 

"[W]ere reported to have attacked," indeed!  Subsequent revelations,
particularly the publication of the Pentagon Papers, demonstrated
convincingly that Johnson manufactured the Gulf of Tonkin incident in
order to get his carte blanche to go to war.     

>From the resolution:

"Congress approves and supports the determination of the President . . .
to take all necessary measures to . . . prevent further aggression' and
the United States is 'prepared, as the President determines, to take all
necessary steps, including the use of armed force' to assist South
Vietnam." 

This from a Senate report that was part of the legislative history of the
act terminating the resolution:

"It has since been established that the [two American vessels attacked]
were engaged in intelligence activities in the Gulf of Tonkin, a fact
that was not vouchsafed to Congress when it considered the resolution. In
addition, considerable doubt has been raised as to the exact
circumstances of the alleged second attack on the two vessels, most
particularly as to whether this attack occurred at all, and, if it did,
whether the 
administration had proof of it at the time that it ordered its
retaliatory air strike on August 4, 1964." 
SENATE COMM. ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, TERMINATION OF MIDDLE EAST AND
SOUTHEAST ASIA RESOLUTIONS, S. REP. NO. 834, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 9-10
(1970)

The resolution was fast-tracked big-time, with little discussion.

Despite the termination of the resolution, however, nobody in Congress
challenged the President's power in the conflict.  

For a 'mourning devotional,' consider the Confessions of St. Henry B.
Gonzalez, from a piece he wrote for the Harvard Journal on Legislation:

   One morning in 1964 the headlines read, "Our Ship in Southeast Asian
Waters Attacked by Communists." The bells rang signifying that a roll
call vote had been called, and we were summoned to the House floor. At
that time, roll call votes (as opposed to voice votes) were called
relatively infrequently, so everybody was surprised by the bells. The
Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Dr. Morgan of Pennsylvania,
was there, and we were told that there was a resolution supporting the
President, backing him in any action to defend the national interests.
  I read the resolution, and it seemed very far-reaching--a backdoor
declaration of war. I questioned Chairman Dr. Morgan. I said, "Doc, you
know, this goes beyond our moral support of the President." Dr. Morgan
was a very wonderful man, very patient and very genial, and he smiled and
said, "Henry, do you want to deny President Johnson what we gave
President Eisenhower in the case of Lebanon and President Kennedy in the
case of the Berlin airlift?" I assumed the resolution had the same
wording as these others had, although I had never seen them. Because of
this assumption I answered, "Well, no, I guess you're right." I still
hesitated, and I did not vote until after two of the three roll calls had
been read.
  Finally, because I would have been the only one voting in any way other
than  "aye," I succumbed to what I hope I have not since then and will
not again succumb--to the fear of ridicule for not supporting the
President.
   
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]