SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: KLP who wrote (97969)1/31/2005 11:55:40 PM
From: KLP  Respond to of 793568
 
Bush, like previous presidents, will try to rally nation on war in State of the Union

By Donna Cassata, Associated Press, 1/31/2005 14:30

boston.com

WASHINGTON (AP) In wartime, presidents have filled their State of the Union addresses with words to rally the nation.

It surely will be no different for President Bush on Wednesday night. Although the commander in chief never mentioned the word Iraq in his inaugural address Jan. 20, he is certain to focus on the conflict in his State of the Union speech just three days after Iraqis held elections.

More than 1,400 Americans have died since the war began nearly two years ago, and Bush is poised to ask Congress for $80 billion more to help pay for a conflict that is costing $1 billion a week. Amid unease about the war, Bush faces the challenge of assuaging Americans' concerns about the rising toll in lives and dollars.

State of the Union speeches offer an important stage for presidents. They usually sketch out the evils of the enemy and trumpet Americans' willingness to sacrifice all part of a concerted effort to keep support strong.

On Jan. 6, 1942, less than a month after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke of the ''spirit of the American people,'' their deep determination and their solemn task.

''The militarists of Berlin and Tokyo started this war. But the massed, angered forces of common humanity will finish it,'' he said.

Then, acknowledging the question of nearly every American, Roosevelt said, ''Many people ask, 'When will this war end?' There is only one answer to that. It will end just as soon as we make it end, by our combined efforts, our combined strength, our combined determination to fight through and work through until the end the end of militarism in Germany and Italy and Japan. Most certainly we shall not settle for less.''

Ken Hechler, a former political science professor who edited Roosevelt's public papers and addresses, said Bush's challenge is similar to Roosevelt's to shore up the nation.

''A good deal of that speech was meant to stiffen the morale against the negative reaction,'' said Hechler, who also served as a congressman from West Virginia (1959-77).

In 1952, Americans wondered if there was an end in sight in Korea. President Truman's support had plummeted after he fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951 for publicly criticizing the commander in chief's strategy to wage a limited war rather than attack China.

In his State of the Union speech, Truman appealed for unity, touched on his domestic agenda and told the nation, ''The only thing that can defeat us is our own state of mind. We can lose if we falter.''

Alonzo Hamby, an Ohio University professor who has written extensively on Truman and Roosevelt, said Truman's challenge was tougher than Bush's, if only because casualties were higher in Korea.

''He had an active military draft at that time. It was a much more difficult situation,'' Hamby said. ''Bush can talk about victory, and we can hope maybe he's right.''

In the middle of a massive air war in the Persian Gulf to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush told the nation on Jan. 29, 1991, ''All of us yearn for a world where we will never have to fight again.''

Bush's father contrasted the offenses of Saddam Hussein ''his ruthless, systematic rape of a peaceful neighbor'' with the multilateral effort to stop him.

''The world can ... seize this opportunity to fulfill the longheld promise of a new world order, where brutality will go unrewarded and aggression will meet collective resistance,'' he said.

Kurt Ritter, a professor of political rhetoric at Texas A&M University, said presidents rally support by contrasting ''the savageries of the enemy'' with ''America and America's effort and civilizing force.''

In the address Wednesday, Ritter said, Bush might remind Americans of the beheadings and insurgent attacks in Iraq, and focus on the push for democracy.

Bush will want to make sure that his domestic agenda anchored by his far-reaching plans for partial privatization of Social Security and overhaul of the tax code does not get lost in the worries about dangers abroad.

Similarly, President Lyndon B. Johnson emphasized in his speech in 1966 that he would not have to sacrifice the Great Society for the Vietnam War.

''This nation is mighty enough, its society is healthy enough, its people are strong enough, to pursue our goals in the rest of the world while still building a Great Society here at home,'' Johnson said.

Two years later, Johnson hailed elections and formation of a government in Vietnam despite the constant threat of violence.

''America will persevere. Our patience and our perseverance will match our power. Aggression will never prevail,'' Johnson said on Jan. 17, 1968.

Thirteen days later, on Jan. 30, the North Vietnamese launched the Tet offensive that crystalized opposition to the war. Three months later, on March 31, Johnson ended a speech on his hopes for a negotiated peace in Southeast Asia with words that shocked a nation his decision not to seek another term in office.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Donna Cassata has covered military issues in Washington since 1989.



To: KLP who wrote (97969)2/1/2005 6:30:35 AM
From: unclewest  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793568
 
Did JFK have an exit strategy when he sent troops into Vietnam....?

No!

Our participation in Southeast Asia actually began under Ike when he sent Special Forces to Laos in the 50s. Later when Laos was declared neutral by the UN, Ike sent some of those teams home and some to S Vietnam.

JFK was Pres for the first 18 months I was in SF. I remember well that JFK widened our participation and expanded our military role in Vietnam on a monthly basis until his assassination. LBJ continued that expansion for five more years before he quit in January 1969.

Throughout JFK and LBJ's tours as POTUS there was never any discussion about bringing troops home. The only discussion was about how many more men to send. The two of them raised our level of participation from no more than 12 A Teams in the early 60s to 536,100 men in 1968.



To: KLP who wrote (97969)2/1/2005 12:11:50 PM
From: Neeka  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793568
 
Jeeeeeezzzzzzzzz KLP. Haven't those thousands and thousands of reruns of the Kennedy administration taught you anything? Or the fisking of the thousands and thousands of documentaries of his life and experiences and his assassination?

The so called "MSM" has gone out of their way and done their best. -gg-

He abandoned the ex-pats at the Bay of Pigs.

Did JFK have an exit strategy when he sent troops into Vietnam....?

Doubtful!