"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Monday, March 13, 2006

CLOONEY: A DUPE WHO IS WRONG AGAIN

CLOONEY spits out more Left-wing nonsense in a post at HUFFINGTON, titled "I Am a Liberal. There, I Said It!" In it he attacks Democrats who voted for the resolution authorizing Bush to attack Saddam. Essentially, he calls their vote for the resolution a "profile in cowardice."

And I'll give this much to Clooney: he might very well be right about most Democrats; they might truly be doves who were too cowardly to vote that way. And Clooney deserves credit for saying this and then forthrightly proclaiming himself essentially a Leftie appeaser and a dove (though he calls himself a liberal).

In fact, he opens his post by proudly asserting that he's a "liberal" - and then he ties his attack on the cowardly Democrats and on Bush and the War in Iraq to previous, historical Leftist attacks which he thinks were good and noble.

By doing this, he unknowingly proves that the Left was wrong then, and they're wrong now. Here's what he wrote:
"... that McCarthy was wrong, that Vietnam was a mistake. And that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaeda ..."
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. Here is the truth:
1 - The Vietnam War was NOT A MISTAKE, abandoning our South Vietnamese allies was a mistake. The truth is, the Vietnam War was a noble war - and one we were winning.

The South Vietnamese were fighting largely on their own when the DEMOCRAT LIBERALS in Congress pulled the plug on them in 1975 - that's TWO YEARS AFTER ALL U.S. TROOPS HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN!

This financial ABANDONMENT of the emerging democracy in South Vietnam led to their collapse against an INVASION by the North Vietnamese Marxist tryants - in violation of the Paris Peace Accord. This led directly to 2 million Vietnamese refugees - The Boat people - fleeing Marxist oppression. Another 500,000 South Vietnamese were put into "re-education camps" - (real "GULAGS," not like Gitmo). And, the collapse of South Vietnam led directly to the victory of Pol Pot in Cambodia and to the 3.5 MILLION people murdered there by Pol Pot's Marxist tryanny - THUS PROVING THAT THE DOMINO THEORY WAS TRUE.

(YUP: THE DOMINO THEORY - A MAJOR REASON FOR OUR INVOLVEMENT IN THE VIETNAM WAR, WAS TRUE. AND AFTER VIETNAM FELL, SO DID OTHER NATIONS IN SE ASIA, AND SOON AFTER, SO DID AFGHANISTAN. AND THEN, THE JIHADOTERRORISTS TOOK OVER IRAN, AND THE LONG WAR BEGAN. ALL WERE THE RESULT OF THE DOVES AND DOVISH APPEAEMENT OF THE USSR. ONLY THE HAWKISH POLICIES OF REAGAN REVERSED THAT. I OPPOSED THEM AT THE TIME, BUT LOOKING BACK, I CAN SEE THAT REAGAN WAS RIGHT.)

If we had stuck by our allies in the South of Vietnam - the way we have our allies in South Korea, then today the South Vietnamese would be as rich and as free as South Koreans instead of being as tyrannized and as poor as North Koreans!

NEED MORE PROOF THAT WE WERE RIGHT? HERE:
The Vietnamese communist tyrants - who TODAY still throw people in jail for just trying to exercise their human rights, like freedom of expression! - are now BEGGING for USA investment. YUP: the Vietnamese now WANT THE USA TO INVEST IN VIETNAM!

Well, if - instead of fighting us for a decade - they had let us and our allies in the South redevelop Vietnam, then they'd have had THAT INVESTMENT FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS - and 2 million Vietnamese wouldn't have died in the war.

YUP: if the Vietnam War was a mistake for ANYONE, it was a mistake for the North Vietnamese - who now beg for the very same capitalist investments that they fought against from 1963-1975. What a waste. And it proves that THE NORTH VIETNAMESE MARXIST WERE WRONG, NOT US.
I KNOW ALL THIS STUFF BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS; I was a teenage dove then - against the Vietnam War and a Leftie. AND, NOW I CAN ADMIT THAT ME AND THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT WERE WRONG, AND WHAT WE DID WAS BAD. Clooney should grow up and admit it , too.

2 - McCarthy was NOT wrong, and he was not on a "witchhunt".

McCarthy was ONLY trying to expose communists, and communist sypathizers in the State Department and the US Army.
AND GUESS WHAT? There were Soviet agents in the Army and the State department. Since the collpase of the USSR, this has all been proved. Hiss WAS a spy. The Rosenbergs were SPIES. And so were all the other people McCarthy exposed.


Contrary to what Clooney, and other misinformed Lefties think, McCarthy had NO INVOLVEMENT in the Hollywood "blacklist" or any other Congressional effort to combat the American communists. McCarthy was NOT even on the House Un-American Activities Committee. REMEMBER: he was a SENATOR! And remember: witchhunts are bad because there's no such thing as witches. But there were communists infiltrating our government. Soviet agents in our Army and State Department were a real threat. People - like Clooney - who call the hunt for these Soviet agents a "witchhunt" are wrong.

3 - Contrary to what Clooney and othe Loony Lefties think, Saddam had numerous ties to al Qaeda and other jihadoterrorist groups. This has been proven over and over again.

SURE: SADDAM HAD NO PROVEN TIES TO 9/11 - BUT THIS IS A LEFT-WING SMEAR AND A RED-HERRING: Bush NEVER SAID SADDAM HAD TIES TO 9/11.

NEED PROOF?! Well, Bush asked for - and got - a SEPARATE RESOLUTION TO ATTACK SADDAM. (This is the resolution which many Democrats supported - at the time - and this is the resolution which Clooney says they should have voted against, and would have if they had the courage of their convictions.)

BUT, IF BUSH HAD REALLY ASSERTED SADDAM WAS CONNECTED TO 9/11 - (AS CLOONEY INSINUATES) - THEN BUSH DID NOT NEED TO GET A SEPARATE RESOLUTION TO ATTACK HIM; HE COULD HAVE JUST USED THE SEPTEMBER 2001 AUMF WHICH AUTHORIZED THE POTUS TO ATTACK THE PERPETRATORS OF 9/11 AND THEIR AFFILIATES.

And if Clooney and other Leftie doves actually bothered to read the 2002 Iraq War Resolution and Bush's speech to the UN General Assembly in September of 2002, then they'd discover that WMD's were only one of nearly two-dozen reasons to attack and depose Saddam.

And these reasons are nearly all "classically liberal" - which is to say "neo-con"; that is, based on the idea that all people EVERYWHERE deserve to be free. This is what we're fighting for in Iraq. And this is what classical liberals like FDR and Truman and JFK believed in - and, they all believed that sometimes you have to fight a war over it.

YO CLOONEY, LOOK AT IT THIS WAY: if it was right for "liberals" to support Rosa Parks and send freedom-riders into the south (to demolish segregation and the KKK, too) - in order to help Blacks win their rights, then it is right to help ALL other people - yup, ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE - win their rights, too. In fact, it's our duty.

Sound too radical to you, George? Too neo-con? Well, it's what FDR said in his most famous "liberal" speech - THE FOUR FREEDOMS. I suggest you and you liberal/dove friends read it - or listen to it. It's a neo-conservative speech if ever there was one! In fact, it could have been delivered by Bush YESTERDAY!
Clooney - like most on the Left - is misinformed, a victim of Left-wing propaganda. Propaganda which fails to pass any test of logic and any fair reading of the EVIDENCE, AND THE FACTS IN THE RECORD.

Clooney is at best useful idiot and a dupe, and like other anti-war dupes - his anti-war idiocies serve the enemy. CLOONEY SHOULD SHUT UP AND ACT.

THE REAL DANGER IS THIS:

If DOVES like Clooney (and Kerry and Kennedy) EVER take over the Congress or the White House, then they'll do to the Iraqis and the Afghanis what they did to the South Vienamese: abandon them. And they'll appease the jihadoterrorists the way they appeased the USSR.

(Doves are doves are doves are doves. Doves didn't defeat Hitler, or the USSR. They won't win The Long War, either.)

THAT'S WHY WE MUST NEVER LET THE LEFT WIN THE WHITE HOUSE OR CONGRESS.

PS: HEY GEORGE (regarding the Civil Rights Movement and Rosa Parks): a higher percentage of GOP members of Congress voted for the US Civil Rights Act then Democrats did - FACT!

33 comments:

Alexandra said...

All Things Beautiful TrackBack George Clooney "I Am A Liberal.There, I Said It":

"Reliapundit spears no punches, and delivers the hard blows. Mind the face, not the face......"

Anonymous said...

if reliapundit = Hitler?

and Hitler = Bush

is reliapundit really Mr. Bush in disguise?

Anonymous said...

FDR's Four Freedoms speech gave me chicken skin.

dukeblondie said...

This is great....good job.

LB said...

Don't Go Into The Light Trackbacked to this post here:

http://dontgointothelight.com/2006/03/george_clooney_i_am_a_moonbat.php

David said...

Wow. You are such a propaganda spewing victim, it's rather extraordinary. Let's look at the facts shall we?

Your last statement is the most egregious, since it's readily available information with a simple Google. You are literally spouting GOP talking points, most recently offered by Rick Santorum amongst others. The problem is, it's incorrect. Did you even bother to check? Obviously not.

Reliapundit wrote: HEY GEORGE (regarding the Civil Rights Movement and Rosa Parks): a higher percentage of GOP members of Congress voted for the US Civil Rights Act then Democrats did - FACT!

Really? Please, if you would cite one link that proves your "FACT". Because, you are WRONG.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed with 153 Democratic and 138 Republican votes in the House, and 46 Democratic and 27 Republican votes in the Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Civil_Rights_Act#Vote_totals

These true facts are also available at hundreds of other places on the web, as well as the history book on my shelf which was written in 1970.

Sad to say, most of your other "facts", in regard to the Vietnam War and McCarthyism, are just as rooted in historical revisionism and made up "facts".

Educate yourself. You're an embarrassemnt.

Anonymous said...

Yer fuckin'ay right!

reliapundit said...

david - you are a moron.
a hiher PERCENTAGE of GOP congressman supported tha act.

do you know what a percentage is?
i wrote percentage and i meant it.

and guess what else - moron?

the act would NOT have passed without GFOP support.
lbj could NOT have passed it wothout GOP support.

in fact - you moron - similar acts had failed NUMEROUS times in the preceeding 15 years becasue the EMOCRAT party - of the party of KKK member Byrd - BLOCKED IT.

Byrd filibustered civil rights bills- NUMEROUS TIMES; in fact - you moron - the last TRUE filibuster (in which a senator ACTUALLY takes the floor and speaks and rtefuses toi give up the floor), and the longest one on record ion modern times was a filibuster by Byrd against civil rights.

THE GOP IS THE PARTY OF LINCOLN.
NO PERSON AND NO PARTY HAS A BETTER TRUER CLAIM TO EQUAL RIGHTS.

And rights for the unborn, too.

buh-byee, david.

PS: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%!!!!!!!!

oh and dave.. go percentasge yo'sef and up yer kazoo!

Anonymous said...

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NVDavisBradley1299.html

David, you're an idiot - do you not understand what the words higher percentage mean?

Back to your hole, twit.

nukemhill said...

Thought you might like to see my response to your post:

http://nukemhill.wordpress.com/2006/03/13/george-clooney-like-fish-in-a-barrel/

Don't know how to trackback yet. Sorry!

Anonymous said...

David

Either you can't read, or you can't do math in public. He states 'a higher percentage of GOP members of Congress voted for the US Civil Rights Act then Democrats did - FACT' Based on the link you supplied, Republicans did vote for the Civil Rights Act at a higher percentage than Democrats (House 134 of 172 Republicans--80%, 153 of 249 Democrats--61%). If you're going to criticize someone, pick a fact you can justify.

reliapundit said...

dave - you are equally worng on vietnam and mccarthy.

our last us combat troop left vietnam on 3/29/73.

saigon fell in 1975 - ONLY afetyr the doves stops financuoing the emerging democracy of our allies.

the doves abandoned our allies. that is just a fact.

also: we won TET and every other campaign in the war. we were WINNING in 3/1973. the commie tyrants of the north were losing. the commies wonm ONLY by getting the dem doves to pull the plug on the south.

and what happened? just what iu said happened. NOT what john lying coward kerry thought would hapopen dutring his perhjurious testimony before the US SENATE in 1971; kerry said the north would hold elections and have aconstitution based on ours. WHAT A STRUPDI ASS KERRY WAS, AND IS.

and you are too.

reliapundit said...

dave ; i suggest you read THE VENONA PAPERS. you'll discover that mccarthy was right. the ussr had infiltrated State and the Army.

guess what dave?

when fdr gave away eastern europe to STALIN at yal;ta, his chief advisor, and the guy who set it all up and wrote the final communique was ALGER HISS - a Soviet agent.

maybe that had something to do woith the result? ya think?

a result which ENS:LAVED #)) MILLION PEOPLE TO SOVIET TYRANNY AND HEGEMONY FOR 40 YEARS!

mccarthy was a HERO compared to Hiss and the Rosenbergs and the commie infiltrators McCarthy exposed.

but then, maybe you like the USSR and thinkl Stalin was unlce joe and that eatern europe was better off under USSR hegemony? in which case you are right to hate mccarthy.

dave: you are a leftie loon, a knee-jerk lib who has UNCRITICAL:L:Y accepted all the lies and disinformation you have been fed.

wake up and smellk reality!

jbubba76013 said...

reliapundit and anonymous,

Nothing like a tag team smackdown of Dave to end an otherwise boring Monday. I love it when they cut and paste their talking point URL's that only prove the very point they are disputing.

I wish they would just go ahead and get a porthole installed in their midsections so they could see out.

the Pirate said...

David he said "a higher percentage of GOP members of Congress." Learn some basic math.

Senate-
Democrats: (46/66)*100 = 69.7%
GOP: (27/34)*100 = 79.4%

House-
Democrats: (153/259)*100 = 59.1%
GOP: (136/176)*100 = 77.2%

Total By Party-
Democrats: (199/325)*100 = 61.2%
GOP: (163/210)*100 = 77.6%

Gandalin said...

Although what Reliapundit has posted regarding the vote on the Civil Rights act is correct, I want to add a more detailed analysis. I know an "Anonymous" poster also supplied some percentages. But I am going to do it again, to underscore the point that FACTS are FACTS. I am taking these numbers directly from the same Wikipedia article that the commenter "Dave" used to make his erroneous point.

The Original House bill was passed with 153 Democrats and 138 Republicans voting yes, and 96 Democrats and 34 Republicans voting no. Do the math: 61% of Democrats voted yes. 80% of Republicans voted yes.

In the Senate, the Senate's BIll carried with 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans voting yes, and 22 Democrats and 6 Republicans voting no. Do the math: 67% of Democrats voted yes. 82% of Republicans voted yes.

When the House re-voted on the Senate's bill, 63% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans voted yes.

As "Dave" said:

"Reliapundit wrote: HEY GEORGE (regarding the Civil Rights Movement and Rosa Parks): a higher percentage of GOP members of Congress voted for the US Civil Rights Act then Democrats did - FACT!"

And guess what, that's absolutely correct. In both Houses of Congress, and in two separate votes in the House, to boot.

You better check it over twice if you EVER think Reliapundit has got his facts wrong. FACTS are FACTS. Not moods, not feelings, not impressions. FACTS are FACTS. And the FACT is, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Bill than Democrats. In FACT, the Civil Rights Bill passed only when the Democratic Party leadership, i.e. President Lyndon Baines Johnson, decided to drop its (his) opposition to the Bill -- which the Republicans would have passed a decade earlier.

David said...

David, you're an embarrassment to the name.

ikestoys said...

Your characterization of Vietnam is horribly simplistic. Focusing on the end of the war is not a fair representation of the entire conflict.

To ignore the US support of Diem/Bao Dai and the refusal to allow elections under the Geneva Convention is simply inexcusable. Under the Geneva agreement after French withdrawal Vietnam was meant to be reunited under an elected government. The reason why the US did not allow this is because they knew the Communists would win because the absolute tyranny and poor policies of the Bao Dai/Diem regime was inexcusable. Diem went on to annihilate random villages, enact no land reform to help poor peasants and kill all political opponents. The Communists were successful in the long run because the United States and the South Vietnamese government never held any real power outside of the urban politic. Most countryside peasants willingly helped the Communists because life was better for a peasant under their regime.

This isn’t a supporting argument of the Communists annihilation of the urban elite and middle class, simply a statement of fact that life was better for a peasant under Communist rule than Diem or any other puppet government. The desperate conditions created by previous French or Francophile regimes was what allowed Vietnam to take over 2 million casualties; they were that desperate.

As for your Domino Theory claims, many of your supporting facts are off. Estimates are that Pol Pot killed 1.5 million people, not a pleasant number, but not the 3.5 million you mentioned. That number sounds like that would be the number killed in the 13 year civil war touched off when the Vietnamese invaded and removed Pol Pot from power.

Looking back, the Domino Theory is not vindicated by history. The Philippines, Thailand and India did not fall to Communism. How do you explain the Domino Theory stopping? A better theory for an explanation of events is the fall of Confucianism to Communism, due to Communisms ability to modernize the East while staying close to their Confucian roots. I don’t wish to explain it all here, but a good book to use as a reference is “A Time for War” by Robert D. Schulzinger. But briefly, China, Korea, Vietnam… all have very deep Confucian roots. Cambodia’s ancestors are considered to be a group of people called the Khmer, but the Khmer were conquered by the Vietnamese, read Confucian, in the 1300s (don’t quote me on the date, I might be off by a lot. The fact is it happed a long time ago.) Laos is similar to Cambodia; it has long been influenced by Confucian ideas from China and Vietnam.

Your blog entry oversimplifies the Vietnamese conflict dangerously and I encourage you to reconsider the United State’s absolute moral authority in the Vietnam conflict. The situation is far more complex than I think you realize. Unless you consider the effect of Colonialism, Confucianism and Vietnamese’s historical fight for independence, you are not approaching the conflict in its entirety.

Also, but much more briefly, even in the 1950s it wasn’t illegal to be a Communist in America. Getting rid of spies is one thing, but hunting someone down because of their ideology isn’t right either. At the very least, you could say that McCarthy contributed to the witch hunt mentality of the 1950s.

And to prove that I’m not a liberal moonbat, which I’m not, I completely agree with your last assertion, although I must say that your use of CAPS makes a coherent argument seem like propaganda.

reliapundit said...

tom;
you wrote:

How do you explain the Domino Theory stopping?

the vietnam war helped hold the line giving thailand and singapore time to firm up theuir preexisting capitalist economies.

these tow ASIAN TIGERS were chieft reason GORBACHEV gave for leading the USSR to "reform" - i think that singapore had a higher gdp than the USSR and this proved to gorby that communism was in need of reform.

so, we lost: souith vietnam, laos, cambodia - that a lot of SE ASIA - exactly as i say.

and when carter took over, the ussr took over parts of centrral america and africa - IOW: the dominoes continued to fall - elsewhere. the ussr invaded AFGHANISTAN and saddam took over in iraq. (AND YES: SADDAM WAS A CLKIENT OF THE USSR JUST LIKE ARAFAT - AND ABBAS!).

only reagan stopped trhe dominos from falling.

God Bless Reagan.

at the time i "thought" (was indoctrinated to believe) that reagan would start WW3!!!!

iu marched against his pershing delpoyment.

but i was wrong and reragan was right.

reagan stopped the dominos.
he and thatcher and PopeJP2 won the cold war.

as for vietnam's 'eastyrnism': now they want capitalists to invest. they beg for us to invest. yet forty years agoi they DIED and KILLEd to keep us out.

they were wrong.

all marxists - and marxist symps - were wrong.

if i have simplified at all it's becasue i am blogging not writing a book. this was a long post.

but basically i told the truth and the facts.

all the best!

Gandalin said...

Tom,

No doubt that Ngo Dinh Diem was not the best conceivable leader for his country. But several Vietnamese whom I later met in America (Buddhists, by the way) respected him as a nationalist.

The United States assumed responsibility for the mess that the perennial idols of the liberal left in this country, les Francais, had made of Indochina. We did not start with a clean slate. We had to pick up the pieces that were there.

But if you're right, and the Diem regime and its awful successors, and the USA, were really so bad, explain something to me.

If as your other idol, Jean Francois Kerry, testified (under a solemn oath?) before the Senate, American troops really "randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country"

-- why didn't millions of Vietnamese refugees flee the country during the period of an active American military presence?

To Jean Francois Kerry, whose father was a State Department apparatchik in the "internationalist" school of Alger Hiss, the "the mystical war against communism" (his exact quote) was misguided.

He testified that in Vietnam "most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart."

He said that "we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now."

Jean Francois Kerry didn't really think there was any difference between democracy and communism, and testified before the Senate thus:

"I think that politically, historically, the one thing that people try to do, that society is structured on as a whole, is an attempt to satisfy their felt needs, and you can satisfy those needs with almost any kind of political structure, giving it one name or the other. In this name it is democratic; in other it is communism; in others it is benevolent dictatorship. As long as those needs are satisfied, that structure will exist."

So, Tom, explain to me why, two years after the departure of the last American combat soldier from Vietnam, when the US Senate, dazzled by Jean Francois Kerry's earlier testimony, and pursuing a policy of abject appeasement of communist tyranny, deprived the free government of South Vietnam of the last bit of military aid, -- why then did more than TWO MILLION Vietnamese refugees flee the country? The country they did NOT flee when American troops, to your way of thinking were raping and pillaging and wrecking their country. When after all, to the Democrat Party in this country, then as now, there really was no big difference between democracy and communism, it was all just a benevolent dictatorship anyway.

The FACTS speak for themselves.

When American troops sacrified their blood and their lives to defend freedom in Vietnam, there were NOT millions of refugees. When the communists took over and began their usual program of mass murder, enforced poverty, and "re-education," millions of refugees fled for their lives. How many thousands of "boat people" drowned at sea in a doomed effort to reach the shores of freedom? How many millions of lives were ruined by the communists and those who appeased them!

And these are the same appeasers who want to surrender to Al Qaeda and to the Ba'athists and to the communists today. They idolize Fidel and Hugo Chavez. There is not a two-bit anti-American dictator anywhere in the world whom they will not rush to succour. Allowing them to regain control of the Congress would be a tragedy of world historical proportions. NEVER AGAIN.

reliapundit said...

http://people.cas.sc.edu/rosati/foer.likefather.nr.3804.htm

WHAT KERRY LEARNED FROM HIS DAD.

by Franklin Foer

Post date: 03.02.04
Issue date: 03.08.04

By the time John Kerry's father, Richard, published his only book, The Star-Spangled Mirror, in 1990, he should have been a mellow man. Nearly 30 years had passed since his retirement from the Foreign Service, where he'd filled mid-level posts in Washington, Berlin, and Oslo.

His central issue, the cold war, had followed him into retirement with the crumbling of the Berlin Wall and rise of glasnost in Russia.

When the 75-year-old Kerry wasn't working on his book ... The Star-Spangled Mirror is a critique of moralism in America's foreign policy--and, more than that, it is a critique of America's national character.

"Americans," he writes, "are inclined to see the world and foreign affairs in black and white." They celebrate their own form of government and denigrate all others, making them guilty of what he calls "ethnocentric accommodation--everyone ought to be like us."

As a result, America has committed the "fatal error" of "propagating democracy" and fallen prey to "the siren's song of promoting human rights," falsely assuming that our values and institutions are a good fit in the Third World.

And, just as Americans exaggerate their own goodness, they exaggerate their enemies' badness.

The Soviet Union wasn't nearly as imperialistic as American politicians warned, Kerry argues.

"Seeing the Soviet Union as the aggressor in every instance, and the U.S. as only reacting defensively, relieves an American observer from the need to see any parallel between our use of military power in distant parts of the world, and the Soviet use of military power outside the Soviet Union," he writes.

He further claims that "Third world Marxist movements were autonomous national movements"--outside Moscow's orbit.

The book culminates in a plea for a hardheaded, realist foreign policy that removes any pretense of U.S. moral superiority. "

Kerry's father worked for James B Conant. He was a legal advisor to the U.S. High Commissioner of Germany, James B. Conant, as well as U.S. Attorney for Berlin.

He joined the Foreign Service in 1956 and was assigned as executive assistant to Sen. Walter F. George, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He taught at the NATO Defense College in Paris in 1958 before being named Chief of the Political Section of the American Embassy there.

Senator George was a segregationist.

ikestoys said...

Reliapundit-
The Domino Theory works much better outside of SE Asia. You can make a much better case for the problems in South and Central America using the Domino theory. However, it just doesn't fit that well in SE Asia.

You mentioned that Singapore was developing a capitalist economy, that their countries were already on modernizing on their own. Therefore, what attractiveness would Communism have? None.

Pre-Communist Vietnam was not a modern state, defining it as "capitalist" would be generous. A feudal system would be more accurate. The way that Confucianism works is that a few Mandarins lead the commoners how to work and conduct themselves. These leaders impose their will as the "One truth". Sounds like it would be an easy transition into Communism, wouldn't it?

There is even evidence hurting the Domino theory inside of Vietnam. The South was not nearly as pro-Communists as the North was throughout the conflict. So why did their support fade as they went South?

Southern Vietnam is not part of ancient Vietnam. The South was conquered after Vietnam won its independence from China in the 1300s (again, a guesstimate). These people did not have the level of Chinese influence that the rest of the nation did. The countries following the fall of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, had their Communists regimes disintegrate on their own. This shows a lack of true support.

I agree that the Domino theory can be applied, especially in Eastern Europe and Central America, but in SE Asia different factors at stake.

My comment was also not to say that the United States was an evil empire in Vietnam, but there is no way that we could claim that we had absolute moral authority. Were we fighting for something good? Yes. Does that mean that our methods or theories behind our involvement were correct? That’s very debatable.

ikestoys said...

Gandalin, wow... so here goes:

"No doubt that Ngo Dinh Diem was not the best conceivable leader for his country. But several Vietnamese whom I later met in America (Buddhists, by the way) respected him as a nationalist."

Understatement of the post here, Diem led a viscous and corrupt regime that did nothing to help the people of Vietnam. His only goal was to create a Vietnam in his image. He constantly complained about how stupid the average Vietnamese was. He only promoted his family and other elites like himself, giving the average Vietnamese no hope for improvement. As for the several Vietnamese you met, that is absolutely irrelevant. Several Vietnamese Buddhists mentioned that they respected Diem as a Buddhist, about 15 were willing to burn themselves to death to protest his regime. Which statement is more powerful?

"So, Tom, explain to me why, two years after the departure of the last American combat soldier from Vietnam, when the US Senate, dazzled by Jean Francois Kerry's earlier testimony, and pursuing a policy of abject appeasement of communist tyranny, deprived the free government of South Vietnam of the last bit of military aid, -- why then did more than TWO MILLION Vietnamese refugees flee the country? The country they did NOT flee when American troops, to your way of thinking were raping and pillaging and wrecking their country. When after all, to the Democrat Party in this country, then as now, there really was no big difference between democracy and communism, it was all just a benevolent dictatorship anyway."

I will explain.

First of all, what sends a stronger message? If you stand up to someone and fight them, or if you run away? You say that 2 million people fled the Communists and no one ran from the Americans, therefore the Communists had no support! 2 MILLION VIETNAMESE DIED FIGHTING WITH THE COMMUNISTS! The southern government refused any type of election that wasn't rigged. Why would they do that if they had support? Do you really think that a leader like Diem could win a popular referendum with 97% of the vote?

If you talk to anyone knowledgeable about Vietnam, or study the conflict seriously yourself, you will realize that the problem with the different governments’ setup by the West had no popular support outside of Saigon.

"The FACTS speak for themselves."

Excuse me for trolling, but people who make this statement often are at a lost to create a true, coherent argument. As with your liberal bashing, it has no relevance with the topic at hand. I will be the first to criticize JFK's and LBJ's slow engagement. I believe that the gradual build up of troops allowed the Vietcong to adjust tactics that would allow them to eventually win the war.

One more thing, your fact about no one fled from the Americans is, excuse me again, absolute BS. The United States helped create and enforce free fire zones, where anyone in them was shot. Do you honestly believe that no one left the area? The reason for the free fire zones was to have the peasants have to seek shelter in government controlled zones.

"When the communists took over and began their usual program of mass murder, enforced poverty, and "re-education," millions of refugees fled for their lives. How many thousands of "boat people" drowned at sea in a doomed effort to reach the shores of freedom? How many millions of lives were ruined by the communists and those who appeased them!"

Erase the word Communist, replace with the word Diem and the passage would make a lot more sense. Upward social mobility was not available under Diem, nor was Diem a capitalist, or a democrat. Diem, and before him, Bao Dai, was the one who "enforced poverty". One of the requirements of becoming a major official was to obtain a college degree, which you could only get if you spoke French, then you had to be politically connected. Diem was maintaining the feudal system of government established years ago. Only the communists gave commoners the opportunity to lead. This was a major problem with the Southern government

The reason why people have such a hard time with accepting that the Vietnamese wanted to be Communist is because they can not imagine being Communist themselves. Put yourself in a Vietnamese position, are you going to muck through the same old crap half-starving to death or are you going to help the people who gave you rice to feed your family? The lack of true economic reform gave many Vietnamese no choice but to support the Communists.

That said, the Communists were not perfect either. They murdered and killed civilians, tortured combatants and assassinated many civilian officials. They were not the best option for the Vietnamese, but they seemed like the only option at the time.

As for the rest of your comments, once again, they are irrelevant. I never said I loved Castro or Chavez or Osama. I don't. I can honestly say I support the Iraq War. But my discussion is not liberal/conservative, its simple historical accuracy and as I've SHOWN and not proclaimed, the facts are on my side.

David said...

For the record, I entirely understood what Reliarpundit wrote, which was:

a higher percentage of GOP members of Congress voted for the US Civil Rights Act then Democrats did

What is one to surmise from this statement? Exactly what it states: that a higher percentage of GOP members of Congress voted for the Rights Act than Democrats who did.

What you did NOT state: The GOP voted for the Civil Rights Act at a higher percentage rate than Democrats, this is, 70% of Republicans in the 1964 session voted for the Act, compared to 60% of Democrats who voted "Yea".

The latter is an entirely different statment Reliarpundit. The distinction between comparison is imorportant. The former implies that the comparison lay within the higher percentage of GOP members to Democrats. The latter implies that the comparison is within the actual percentages of each PARTY. You can see the difference no? What you wrote above states rather clearly that more GOPers than Democrats voted for the act. Which is untrue. 325 Democrats voted for the Act. 210 Republicans. Not a higher percentage. Yet, I did understand what you were trying to say...

But, of course, Reliarpundit offers up his little white lie for a reason. You see, if he states the latter, it all unravels, as I'll show.

For starters his entire arugment is a logical fallacy.

Specifically, Affirmation of the consequent, which states "A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true." In this case, "A higher percentage of votes indicates greater moral cause towards Civil Rights", "A higher percentage within the GOP voted for the Act than percentage of those in the Democratic Party" thus "GOPers are better than Democrats". Too bad it's all based upon a lie.

Now, let's look at the fuzzy math shall we? (I'll stick to the FACTS. Seems certain members of the brain trust can't keep that stright. Pirate, you realize your numbers have far exceeded the actual numbers of members of Congress? Interesting. Truly.)

What Reliarpundit has done is called "stacking the percentages". It's an old trick. And, like true suckers, many of you have fallen for it. Hook. Line.

It works like this: You take a smaller sample, in this case, Republican members of Congress, and compare that to a larger sample, Deomcrats in Congress, citing percentages, but leave out the overall percentage that would be used as a qualifier. We are talking facts here right?

516 members of Congress (Senate and House) voted on the Civil Rights Act. 245 Democrats and 171 Republicans. That means for starters, there are 42% more Democrats than Republican in Congress. 42%. Mull that about for a second. Because it's impoortant.

Comparing a percentage of two groups with such a disparity between the overall number is disingenuous at best. Because statistically, the percentage of Democrats who did vote, both Yea and Nay, is that much higher. 42%. And, the number of GOP votes is statisically that much lower, since they made up only ummmm... gee, it's only around 34%. Imagine that.

Look at it this way: 66% of Congress was Democratic. Only 34% was Republican. You simply can't cite the percentile of GOPers who voted for the Act (79%) and compare it to the Democrats who did (69%) and say that it implies in any way that MORE Republicans voted for the Act. It's deceptive at best, since the overall number of actual GOPS in Congress was lower than the Democratic number by a huge margin: 42%.

The GOP was a signincantly smaller sample. Such disparites are laughable. Your math is so flawed, it's embarrassing.

Again. Embarrassing.

So, you wanted to talk about percentages. You got it WRONG. Benjamin Disraeli got is right:

"There are three kinds of lies - lies, damned lies and statistics."

And, you've managed to cover all three here. Take a bow.

Gandalin said...

David,

You're missing the point, my friend.

You say:

"ook at it this way: 66% of Congress was Democratic. Only 34% was Republican. You simply can't cite the percentile of GOPers who voted for the Act (79%) and compare it to the Democrats who did (69%) and say that it implies in any way that MORE Republicans voted for the Act. The GOP was a signincantly smaller sample. Such disparites are laughable. Your math is so flawed, it's embarrassing."

The implication is NOT that "MORE Republicans" voted for the act, but that the Republican Party in Congress was more supportive of the Act than was the Democratic Party in Congress. We are NOT "sampling" Republicans and Democrats in Congress, we are counting ALL OF THEM. IT IS NOT A STATISTICAL SAMPLE. The math is NOT flawed, it is plain and simple, and simply true. The REpublican Party is the Party of LINCOLN. The Democratic Party is the Party of segregation, Jim Crow, and the Dean of the Democratic Party in the Senate is an unrepentant KU KLUX KLANSMAN.

Tom:

Of the two million Vietnamese who died during the war, many died fighting AGAINST the communists. I don't claim that the communists had no supporters. But the fact that the communists in Vietnam had supporters doesn't make the results of their insane and idiotic policies any better. Millions of Germans died fighting for socialist totalitarianism, too, but I don't suppose you'd claim that gives their cause any particular moral authority, would you?

Your "history" is heavily influenced by the work of KGB propagandists who shaped the appearances of the war. My bookshelf groans under the weight of the communist lies that I once believed. But there are other sources, too.

Gandalin said...

Tom:

I appreciate your calm tone and your patience here:

"As for the rest of your comments, once again, they are irrelevant. I never said I loved Castro or Chavez or Osama. I don't. I can honestly say I support the Iraq War. But my discussion is not liberal/conservative, its simple historical accuracy and as I've SHOWN and not proclaimed, the facts are on my side."

I believe that you do not support Usama Bin Laden, Fidel Castro, or Hugo Chavez. But when Rep. Jack Murtha poses with the leaders of "Code Pink," he is giving AID and COMFORT to a far-left communist group that SUPPORTS and is SUPPORTED BY Castro & Chavez.

As Eric Blair used to say, the Democratic Party in Congress is "objectively" supporting our enemies, whether they are doing it as dupes or traitors.

And no, the FACTS are NOT on your side. Neither is history, past present or future.

reliapundit said...

tom; you show me where anyone ever said trhe domino theory is limited to se asia.

it was proven true thee and around the world.

reagan stopped the bleeding.

the doves who pulled the plug on the south vietnamese sis the same to the SHAH and to the ciontras.

EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM WE FACE NOW IS A DIRECT RESULT.

appeasement of evil has never worked.

not in 1975. not in 1939.

not now.

everyhting the dove said WOULD happen DID NOT.

kerry said that the vietcong were benign. they were not. niehter ewas pol pot. neither was ANY AND EVERY copmmie tyrant.

BOTTMLINE: vietnam was noble. we won militarliy. south vietnam ONLY fell becasue of US doves in congress.

YOU CANNOT CLAIM OTHERWISE AND BE TELLING THE TRUTH.

thanks for your commenting.

i belive its thime yopur reexamined your received leftist "wisdom" in light of these facts and THE TRUTH.

it will set you free.

all the best!

the Pirate said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
the Pirate said...

David, do I need to buy you a calculator and teach you basic math? Its not like I'm asking you to find the operating pressure of a deep well areation blower.
You said ->"I'll stick to the FACTS. Seems certain members of the brain trust can't keep that stright. Pirate, you realize your numbers have far exceeded the actual numbers of members of Congress? Interesting. Truly"<-

House of Reps has 435 Memebers (as established by Public Law 62-5 passed on August 8, 1911 and taking effect in 1913):
259 + 176 = 435

Sentate has 100 members (as the 50th State joined the Union in 1959 which, for reference,is before 1964):
66 + 34 = 100

So by simple logic and calculator use you will find that:
100 + 435 = 535 = 325 + 210

David said...

Reliapundit wrote: The implication is NOT that "MORE Republicans" voted for the act, but that the Republican Party in Congress was more supportive of the Act than was the Democratic Party in Congress.

Umm. Support is shown by a vote, and that vote is done with numbers. Citing a percentage as you have done is indeed meant to imply that "more Republicans" voted for the act, or by voting actually "showed their support", since, um... you know, they show their support by VOTING. They are one and the same Relipundit. Comeo on. Your statement is ridiculous.

We are NOT "sampling" Republicans and Democrats in Congress, we are counting ALL OF THEM. IT IS NOT A STATISTICAL SAMPLE. The math is NOT flawed, it is plain and simple, and simply true.

Wow. You just don't get it do you? Here it is again. The sample of Republican's is 42% smaller than the sample of Democrats. You can not compare two samples, one smaller than the other, and state that the smaller percentage of one group, the GOP, shows a greater propensity via percentage than the other. It's flawed and basic statisical error which hasn't taken into account the 42% difference in sample.

Amazing. Truly. I expect you'll simply ignore this fact of math though. As you have done so far.

Pirate, as I said above, if you care to look at the numbers you presented, they are in error.
From your post above:

Senate-
Democrats: (46/66)*100 = 69.7%
GOP: (27/34)*100 = 79.4%

House-
Democrats: (153/259)*100 = 59.1%
GOP: (136/176)*100 = 77.2%

Total By Party-
Democrats: (199/325)*100 = 61.2%
GOP: (163/210)*100 = 77.6%

For the record: 516 members of Congress voted for the Act. Your vote if off by 19.

the Pirate said...

David-

For refernece I pulled the Yes vot totals off of the Wikipedia link you provided and compared it to the total number of seats the respective party held at that time. So it not only includes no votes, but also those who voted present or didn't bother to show up at all. This accounts for every member of Congress, but you're more than welcome to give thse memebrs of Congress a by, it doesn't change that a higher percentage of GOP memebrs voted for it.

As far as sample size, you missed the boat. You could t test the results but being its a yes or no answer, using the Fischer exact test to analyze a 2x2 contingency table (and a t-tailed P vlaue of 0.0001) you would find the following:
The association between rows (groups - GOP & DNC) and columns (outcomes - Yes & No)is considered to be extremely statistically significant.

But you could always assign a value of 1 to a yes and 0 to a no, calculate the mean [average result],standard deviation, and number of occurances (this takes into account more democrats) then use it calculate the t stat and show that once again by conventional criteria (95% level of confidence), this difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant.

the Pirate said...

Forgot this, the t value ends up being t = 4.0966, now go pull out you t-table and you can see where it falls on the curve.

reliapundit said...

david;
the hiostorical fact is - as gandalin pointed out - that the GOP was more pro-Cibil Rights Act than the Dem Party from 1946-1968.

The major opposition to Civil Rights acts was from the southern Democrats - a key part of the FDR coalition.

for LBJ to pass it he needed the GOP and Dirksen. lbj knew at the time that he could be losing the south to the gop. and in fact, many southern dems left the party. after 1968 the GOP became more southern and more conservative. but it reatined and retained a very strong pro-civil rights heritage and wing.

as senator sessions has pointed out in numerous speeches on the floor of the Senate, the Civil rights act and desegragation SAVED the south and revitialized the south. repression segregation and racism has hurt the entire south - not just the blacks who were the most brutalized victioms and targets of racism.

now, the GOP is once again reaching out to blacks and minorities, and - in the traditon of Lincoln - standing up for the weakest among us: the unborn.

i only made the historically accurate comment about the GOP and the pasage of the Civil Rights Act becasue Clooney brought it up in a historical context: clooney argued that it was the liberals (dems) who were for civil rights, when in fact it was the dems who MOST opposed it.

parties change.

the GOP went thru a less pro-civil rights phase from 1972-1980.

that phase is over,

the Democracts have changed too, over time. once the dems were a part of neo-cons - like FDR and Trumnan, and JFK.

now the democrat party - the one i have been a registered voter in for 32 years - is a party of socialists and doves and appeasers.

i pray this phase will end.

but when i see jerks like pelosi and dean and feingold and murtha and reid and teddy jo kennedy and kerry running the party i think they have a long LONG LONG way to go.

buh byeee.