Carl, if that could be shown to be the case, IMHO, definitely, but as Jim said, it is the House's job to indict. I thought that Johnson did just that with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but being "history challenged" I might be wrong. Actually, I should rephrase, he did it for non personal reasons, but for what he thought was right for the country, but to do that he misled the congress, not much different then Rosevelt did to get us into WWII (thanks god, since otherwise, my bones would be rotting in the Ardennes Mountains)to overcome the congress reluctance to get out of "isolationism". The fact is that President mislead for various reasons and the "victors" rewrite the history in the appropriate manner
Zeev |
