The man in charge of the National Parks has his friggin' hat on backwards!

[Alan Goldhammer]

However, it's not a technicality between National Park and National Monuments.  National Parks require the will of the people through Congressional legislation, not a president's lone decision.  Monuments were intended to be small to protect specific antiquities and archeological sites.   Here's the actual law American Antiquities Act of 1906 that set up Monuments. https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/anti1906.htm  There was no intent to cover the huge park areas that Pres Clinton and Obama created for Big Ears and Grand Staircase, or in fact many of the other wonderful National Parks that were legislated into law by Congress..  In any case, Trump didn't reverse them wholly but reduced one by 85% and the other by about half.  The way to avoid these back and forth political decisions by Presidents is to memorialize them in legislation.  That requires Congress.

What is missing from this argument is the clear fact that the lands under question are the property of the US government and not the states in question.  The lands in the west, other than Texas, were acquired through war or purchase.  When statehood was conferred by an Act of Congress I don't believe that these lands were part of the granting of statehood but rather preserved by the US government.  the lands in question were hardly inhabited at the time of statehood (Utah is a great example here as the population of the state was centered around Salt Lake City area. Nevada was pretty much Reno and Carson City; Las Vegas came a lot later.)   You might not like that but please note that this was through an Act of Congress which according to your statement was "...the will of the people..."    Some National Parks started off as National Monuments (Grand Canyon and the Olympic Rain Forrest.

[Alan Klein]

What is missing from this argument is the clear fact that the lands under question are the property of the US government and not the states in question.  The lands in the west, other than Texas, were acquired through war or purchase.  When statehood was conferred by an Act of Congress I don't believe that these lands were part of the granting of statehood but rather preserved by the US government.  the lands in question were hardly inhabited at the time of statehood (Utah is a great example here as the population of the state was centered around Salt Lake City area. Nevada was pretty much Reno and Carson City; Las Vegas came a lot later.)   You might not like that but please note that this was through an Act of Congress which according to your statement was "...the will of the people..."    Some National Parks started off as National Monuments (Grand Canyon and the Olympic Rain Forrest.

...and your point is?

[degrub]

Just to clarify history for you.  It was a Democrat, President Johnson, who started and escalated the war in Vietnam with his phony Tonkin Bay incident, his lie claiming North Vietnam attacked our ships first. It was Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, a Democrat under Democrat President Johnson who lied for years to the public about our ability to win the war after telling Ellsworth of the Pentagon Papers that he didn't think we could win.  I didn't see the movie.  But it seems the movie wants to re-write history if its intent was to blame the war on Republicans.   

Actually, Kennedy (D) and Eisenhower(R) had a hand in it starting for the US as the French got pummeled out by the communist forces in the North. Eisenhower refused to bomb Dien Bien Phu to save the French, but later actively supported the anti-communist government in the South. Kennedy escalated with additional active military support and aid, starting with additional "advisors". Johnson's administration, as you said, used the Tonkin incident get Congress to authorize escalation to active bombing campaigns and then US ground troops the following year.

[Alan Klein]

Actually, Kennedy (D) and Eisenhower(R) had a hand in it starting for the US as the French got pummeled out by the communist forces in the North. Eisenhower refused to bomb Dien Bien Phu to save the French, but later actively supported the anti-communist government in the South. Kennedy escalated with additional active military support and aid, starting with additional "advisors". Johnson's administration, as you said, used the Tonkin incident get Congress to authorize escalation to active bombing campaigns and then US ground troops the following year.

We support and provide advisers to lots of countries around the world.  But Republican Eisenhower was smart enough to stay out of a war in Vietnam.  America had 8 years of peace during his two terms.  Democrat Kennedy did enough damage with his failed Bay of Pigs fiasco that led directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis and nearly WWIII.  He was assassinated before he could do more damage in Vietnam. But it was Democrat Johnson who fabricated the Tonkin Gulf incident to get Congress to write the War Powers Act that gave him permission to go into a real war.  So it was Johnson who took us from a few advisers under Kennedy to 500,000+ troops and 58,000 Americans dead. 

[RSL]

I was there when this crap started. When Rolling Thunder began on March 1st, 1965, I was in Thailand. Shortly after that the Marines landed on the beaches of Vietnam. They jumped off the landing craft and waded ashore to meet girls with leis and reporters with movie cameras. They could have docked and gone ashore without getting wet, but this was an LBJ and McNamara production. I was sent down to Vietnam in June. When I got to Vietnam as a radar site commander I was in the midst of a bunch of Army guys flying Huey gunships. We weren't pretending to be advisors any longer.

Eisenhower was the first president I voted for, and I remember Eisenhower warning about getting involved in a war in Asia. One reason he backed the anti-communists in the South was to avoid the kind of war his successors got us into. When I look at the history of the damned thing, going back to WW II, I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to back Ho Chi Minh toward the end of the big war. That could lead to a long discussion in which I don't intend to get involved, but there are some good arguments in that direction.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Best book on Vietnam that I've read is Frances FitzGerald's "The Fire in the Lake."  It's an expansive history of Vietnam and the American involvement.  For the military side of things Neil Sheehan's "A Bright Shining LIe that traces things through the lens of John Paul Vann who served early on in the military and after his resignation from the Army as an advisor.  Both books are compelling reads.

[Peter McLennan]

Ken Burns’ Vietnam doc series is relentlessly informative, even for those of us old enough to have watched it unfold.

[jeremyrh]

Just to clarify history for you.  It was a Democrat, President Johnson, who started and escalated the war in Vietnam with his phony Tonkin Bay incident, his lie claiming North Vietnam attacked our ships first. It was Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, a Democrat under Democrat President Johnson who lied for years to the public about our ability to win the war after telling Ellsworth of the Pentagon Papers that he didn't think we could win.  I didn't see the movie.  But it seems the movie wants to re-write history if its intent was to blame the war on Republicans.   

As you well know, it was not the war per se that was the subject of the WP story, it was the lies that accompanied the extension to Cambodia. Nixon was a Republican, as I recall?

Photography content> The War Relics Museum in Ho Chi Minh City has a great number of stunning images.

[RSL]

Gee, I though it was "Swift Boat Kerry," the Democrat candidate, who extended the war into Cambodia.

[JoeKitchen]

As you well know, it was not the war per se that was the subject of the WP story, it was the lies that accompanied the extension to Cambodia. Nixon was a Republican, as I recall?

Photography content> The War Relics Museum in Ho Chi Minh City has a great number of stunning images.

Actually it was both.  McNamara was the one who initiated the analysis that would eventually become the Pentagon Papers, and it was his assertion that the war was not winnable from the on set that was most surprising. 

[Alan Klein]

As you well know, it was not the war per se that was the subject of the WP story, it was the lies that accompanied the extension to Cambodia. Nixon was a Republican, as I recall?

Photography content> The War Relics Museum in Ho Chi Minh City has a great number of stunning images.

Nixon initially wanted to reveal the contents of the pentagon papers because they embarrassed Democrats.  But Kissinger, his national security advisor, advised him to fight to keep the papers secret so not to establish precedent for future secrets.  But Nixon had nothing to do with all the lies around Vietnam leading up to our involvement in the war there as the papers covered Vietnam from 1948 to 1967 before Nixon became president (in 1969). 

[BernardLanguillier]

Just to clarify history for you.  It was a Democrat, President Johnson, who started and escalated the war in Vietnam with his phony Tonkin Bay incident, his lie claiming North Vietnam attacked our ships first. It was Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, a Democrat under Democrat President Johnson who lied for years to the public about our ability to win the war after telling Ellsworth of the Pentagon Papers that he didn't think we could win.  I didn't see the movie.  But it seems the movie wants to re-write history if its intent was to blame the war on Republicans.   

Euh... I am not sure where I wrote anything not aligned with the historical facts.

But you seem to have missed the point entirely since the point was about the importance of having a free press.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

Euh... I am not sure where I wrote anything not aligned with the historical facts.

But you seem to have missed the point entirely since the point was about the importance of having a free press.

Cheers,
Bernard

I'm all in favor a free press.  But your original post blamed Republicans.  It didn't mention that the Pentagon Papers showed the duplicity and lies of Democrat President Johnson and his Secretary of Defense McNamara who were the main cause of getting America into a major war in Vietnam.  Republican President Nixon was only responsible for defending the release of the papers publicly after the fact so that future secrets of government operations could be protected.  Republicans didn't start the war.  Democrats did.  I just wanted to set the record straight. 

[Manoli]

Actually it was both.  McNamara was the one who initiated the analysis that would eventually become the Pentagon Papers, and it was his assertion that the war was not winnable from the on set that was most surprising. 

The Fog of War - an Errol Morris Film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHdMeHxDg90

[JoeKitchen]

The Fog of War - an Errol Morris Film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHdMeHxDg90

Well, considering our new forum links rule and that sitting through an entire movie is a significantly bigger commitment of my time, which I just don't have right now, then compared to the average link posted (even compared to Schewe's average article sizes), could you at least summarize what you posted and why you are posting this in reaction to my comment? 

I am not even sure if you are being confrontational or agreeable or just providing more information for the sake of it with this link. 

[Alan Klein]

Joe, here's a summary.  The link has a written list of the 11 lessons learned.  I think McNamara was a very conflicted soul.  I wouldn't trade anything for what he must have gone through, the guilt, for the rest of his life knowing that if he was honest, had a little lesss hubris, and broke with Johnson he could have stopped the carnage a lot sooner.

"The Fog of War is a film about the life and times of Robert S. McNamara, the former Secretary of Defense under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. The piece is a mix between historical footage and an interview with Robert McNamara by the director, Errol Morris. While allowing McNamara to tell the story from his perspective, Morris also divides the film into eleven lessons that can be taken away from McNamara’s life. What results is an inside look at one of the most important and controversial figures of 20th century American government. The film is also a candid look at the human side of the decision makers that run the United States and how their personalities can affect policy.
http://handofreason.com/2011/media/the-fog-of-war-eleven-lessons-from-the-life-of-robert-s-mcnamara

[Manoli]

I am not even sure if you are being confrontational or agreeable or just providing more information for the sake of it with this link. 

Certainly not being confrontational and your post was a non-partisan cue to a period of history which is more than just 'interesting'  I don't/didn't comment to avoid the ensuing partisan Dems/Reps bickering. It's an excellent documentary, so I linked to a youtube clip. Is it worth 90 minutes of your time ? - only you can be the judge of that. It won awards and was highly acclaimed - IMO with good reason.

[Manoli]

... knowing that if he was honest, had a little lesss hubris, and broke with Johnson he could have stopped the carnage a lot sooner.

I'd agree with the 'broke with Johnson' but whether he could have stopped the carnage sooner is doubtful. I suspect he disliked Johnson in the extreme (understandably) but, as in the current US administration, you do what you can behind the scenes, but I'd guess that there are quite a few who aren't exactly fully behind the POTUS.

[jeremyrh]

I didn't see the movie. 

Don't let that stop you, Alan.

[Alan Klein]

I'd agree with the 'broke with Johnson' but whether he could have stopped the carnage sooner is doubtful. I suspect he disliked Johnson in the extreme (understandably) but, as in the current US administration, you do what you can behind the scenes, but I'd guess that there are quite a few who aren't exactly fully behind the POTUS.

Of course we'll never know as you can't change history.  But Johnson refused to run for his second term.  Had McNamara gone public, Johnson may have had to get out sooner.  Of course, Johnson just kicked the can down the road to the next President to deal with it.  So it may not have made a difference anyway because neither president could just get out "without honor".  So its grind to the end may have been inevitable the way it happened. 

On a separate note, I did read a little about the lessons learned by McNamara.  It said he was one of those who planned the fire bomb raids on Japan cities killing civilian populations during WWII.  He acknowledged that he'd probably be charged with wars against humanity if America lost.  So McNamara was certainly not squeamish about making war.  Any argument he would have made against Johnson's beliefs and actions rings hallow.