Skip to comments.New Thesis on Vietnam Aimed at 2008 Election (Nixon & Kissinger not the Dems betrayed South Vietnam)
Posted on 01/30/2007 2:38:26 PM PST by presidio9
A new thesis about the end of the Vietnam war is making the rounds in the context of the debate over Iraq. It holds that President Nixon and Henry Kissinger not the Democratic Congress and public opinion were chiefly culpable in America's betrayal of South Vietnam.
The managing editor of Foreign Affairs, Gideon Rose,
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
In 1975, ex-President Nixon aimed his mind control ray at the Democrats in Congress all the way from San Clemente and made them cut off funds to South Vietnam.
The left is re-writing history?
I don't think a "thesis" is required to learn the truth, just a review of the facts.
A lying coward, media, and a certain senators actions would be a better thing to spend time studying.
Problem with this scenario is that Kissinger is still alive and he can kick their butts from DC to Timbuktu.
"It holds that President Nixon and Henry Kissinger not the Democratic Congress and public opinion were chiefly culpable in America's betrayal of South Vietnam."
More lies by these frapping leftists. They never give up, do they? No part of history they won't try to distort or re-write. These people have the mentality of totalitarians, and they will lie consistently and forever to the American public.
Liars should be treated like liars.
My favorite is when they start ranking presidents, and Woodrow Wilson invariably makes the top ten. Ignoring for a moment the fact that had we not gotten involved in WWI, Hitler, Stalin and probably Mao would never have come to power, the man was literally brain-dead for the last three years of his term.
As I recall, in 1975 Gerald Ford was President [and mute] when a DEMOCRAT led Congress cut off the funding, and military supplies promised to the South Vietnamese in '72. But yeah, Nixon did it, fresh from his triumph at the Johnstown flood.
That agitprop should be shot down pronto.
All necessary is to look at today's Democrat - that's Democrat - manifestations, and view their cowardice, duplicity to achieve any end, and feverish desire to attempt to appease those intent on killing all of us.
They abandoned the S. Vietnamese and Cambodians; they now seek to abandon committed Iraqi allies, and consequently the whole Middle East, for the silver of poliitical opportunism.
The only antidote to their poison is a continuous offensive against them.
Not a matter of giving up. It's a matter of creating more viewership through further creative imagery. All about sponsorship and profit. Take the show "Wife Swap" where they generally take people that are polar opposites and place them in the same cage for a couple of weeks. This most certainly is the type of TV people want to watch. Same thing here "We know what you've been told, but according to our experts Vietnam blah, blah, blah" - cut to Lexus commercial etc.
I don't take TV seriously because nobody on there knows what they are talking about, because if they did there would be no need for part 2, and commercials for Tide with Bleach. Because in part 1 of the series there was only plain Tide.
This is news? Those of us who were there at the time knew damn well that Kissinger and Le Duc Tho had negotiated a face-saving US surrender. The fact is that neither Kennedy, Johnson nor Nixon had any idea what they wanted out of the Vietnam war -- other than not to be blamed for losing it. The Paris Peace Accords were 'close enough' and we bailed out.
Yes, the media was against us and the Dems were their usual selves... but that all came after three Presidents' utter failure to lead.
"Oceania has never been at war with Eurasia."
You mean that the bombing of Hanoi until the North Vietnamese agreed to sit down at the negotation table, getting them to agree to respect the soverignty of South Viet Nam is a "US Surrender"?
Strange - I thought that the Paris Peace Accords, while flawed, were more of a victory for the U.S. than for the North. And in fact, if the U.S. had followed through on our promises to aid the South with the North Vietnamese Army invaded (in violation of the accord) - then they would have withdrawn, and the South wouldn't have fallen.
But it sounds like revisionist re-write to blame the loss on other than those who are responsible for the loss - Ted Kennedy and the Democrats, aided by the Lame Stream (lying) Media. The passive participants included a public that was too lazy and slightly stupid to investigate the facts of the sordid affair.
Mr. Gitell (gitell.com) is a contributing editor of The New York Sun wrote.
"There is a word for that, and that is betrayal. Without a doubt, Congress felt compelled to follow the public and leave South Vietnam defenseless in 1975. But with the hindsight of history, we know that measures existed that could have preserved the South Vietnamese government without full-scale American redeployment, namely the air war, money, and supplies. Attempts to absolve the 93rd and 94th Congresses and to shift the blame for the final fall of Saigon to Messrs Nixon and Kissinger only cloud today's current leadership from acting wisely as we are challenged by a new and equally savage enemy."
There is a word for that, and that is betrayal. Without a doubt, Congress felt compelled to follow the public and leave South Vietnam defenseless in 1975. But with the hindsight of history, we know that measures existed that could have preserved the South Vietnamese government without full-scale American redeployment, namely the air war, money, and supplies. Attempts to absolve the 93rd and 94th Congresses and to shift the blame for the final fall of Saigon to Messrs Nixon and Kissinger only cloud today's current leadership from acting wisely as we are challenged by a new and equally savage enemy.
You got that right! But we have the advantage of "instant" replay to see who's at fault because it's happening again. Different teams, same contact sport.
The left-instigated social turmoil, the Democrat-instigated political clash, the MSM fulmination against a Republican president's war -- all major parts of the late 1960s and early 1970s. The quagmire, in other words.
"The war is a Bush failure!" fulminate the MSM. "The American people are overwhelmingly against the war!"
Soon this generation's John Kerrys will testify to the criminality of U.S. troops and chain of command, often quoting phony verterans of the war -- blatantly arguing for the enemy's position, Rats anodding -- it's called Congressional oversight.
Then violence and a call to end the violence by cutting off funding of the immoral, illegal war that "every" American opposes.
Won't be any violence this time? Oh, yeah? Only Al Gore stopped his Party from fomenting riots to help settle the 2000 elections. "The people have spoken! They want Gore! Stop the violence, Mr. Bush, step aside."
To wit, from David Frums Diary, NOV. 19, 2002: GORE SPEAKS. The words are by Karenna Gore.
He said, "We have to do what's best for the country, and it is not good for the country to have this kind of divisiveness. And he was on the phone, really calling off the dogs. There were people who wanted to fan the ... the flames of the racial issue and have real unrest. And he was on the phone asking them not to, because of what was best for the country not because of what was best for him politically. And that's really who he is. [end excerpt]
Finally, calls to impeach! A 24/7 MSM frenzy reporting the president's "crimes." Then another "Peace with Horror" made under incredible duress.
The left's issue is not the issue. It's a weapon, "issue" after "issue" after "issue."
The only "issue" then as now is "Bring it all down, man."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.