However, upon close examination of the facts and cross-referencing from other sources, it appears much of McNamara’s account proves largely inaccurate, and lacks important detail. Essentially, McNamara’s memoir can be seen as an attempt to admonish himself of the controversy. He removes himself from many of the important events, and gives the illusion that he was a mere …show more content…
The question still remains however, why did it pass? McNamara in some sense does give an accurate answer when referring to the ambiguous language of both the constitution and the resolution itself. But, he still doesn’t analyze some of the other key factors such as the role of Senator Fulbright in the hearings. It was his assurance that “This resolution doesn’t mean a thing. Lyndon wants this to show he can be decisive and firm with the communists, too”, that would help persuade congress. Congress understood the breadth of the resolutions power but they didn’t for see that it would be an authorization for the escalation of