Skip to comments.Freedom First for Vietnam Act of 1993 (Duncan Hunter, anti-communist)
Posted on 06/11/2007 4:25:58 PM PDT by pissant
Freedom First for Vietnam Act of 1993 (Introduced in House) HR 1868 IH
H. R. 1868
To prohibit the lifting of the United States embargo of Vietnam.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 27, 1993
Mr. HUNTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
A BILL To prohibit the lifting of the United States embargo of Vietnam.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Freedom First for Vietnam Act of 1993'.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LIFTING OF VIETNAM EMBARGO.
The President may not rescind the exercise of those authorities with respect to the United States embargo of Vietnam which were extended under Presidential Determination No. 91-52 of September 13, 1991, unless the President determines and certifies to the Congress that--
(1) the Government of Vietnam and the Communist Party of Vietnam have made a public commitment to permit free and fair elections, monitored by international observers, for a national legislature and local government offices; and
(2) Vietnamese laws restricting internationally-recognized freedoms of expression, association, and religion have been eliminated.
H.R.1868 Title: To prohibit the lifting of the United States embargo of Vietnam.
Sponsor: Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52]
(introduced 4/27/1993), Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 8/31/1993 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Received from State.
Go Hunter 2008
Duncan Hunter is the only candidate whose statements match his record.
Now if he could just get his support up over 1% or so.... :(
He’s the only one who takes the chicoms seriously as well as the commies in Venezuela. No doubt he would rid the world of Chavez in a heartbeat.
Well, among activists, he’s doing quite well. The ill informed “likely GOP voter” is still in a fog. I plan to change that.
Heres a poll for you....
Guess hes not looking at these either:
Hunter beats McCain in his home state:
SC Straw Poll Makes it Clear:Duncan Hunter Has Emerged as Conservative Answer
Must not even pay attention to FOX polls....
Kinda funny that the pundits are already discounting the coming Iowa straw poll as invalid. It tells me that they expect real competition for Romney in Iowa without a couple of “top tier” candidates present.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary (San Diego, California)
For Immediate Release
May 17, 1993
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN “A TOWN HALL MEETING WITH BILL CLINTON”
KGTV Studio San Diego, California
8:00 P.M. PDT
(snipped down to the relevant text on Vietname during the timeframe of Duncan Hunter introducing this bill)
Q Mr. President, this is my brother, Colonel Charles Sharpe. He was captured in North Vietnam October 1st, 1965. And I have very good reason he is still alive today. Mr. President, you promised a clean sweep when you became President. The POW families have been stonewalled for more than 20 years by the same people in power. The gridlock continues. And at the same time, the Vietnamese government, the policy of the Vietnamese government, “we can keep you forever,” continues. But it could end with the removal of the old guard and replacement of a new guard.
My question, Mr. President, will you extend this same clean sweep as promised to our POWs, change in the gridlock, and why haven’t you signed an executive order releasing information to the families so the truth can finally be told and to pave the way for the return of our alive prisoners?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we have made public a lot of information. And I will go back and check and see what the status of that is. Let me say, first of all, if you have any information about your brother you want to give me, I will do my best to run it down.
Q I would be happy to, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Secondly, let me say that I have sent or supported a number of Vietnam veterans going over to Vietnam in the last several weeks to try to get more and more information. For the first time, when General Vessey was over there the last time, just a few weeks ago, we actually got a list, they gave us their list, which appears to be a very authentic list of every POW and MIA that they knew and what happened to them, with a lot of information that they had never even revealed that they had before. So I think they are moving forward, because the — our big stick now is they want to make money, they want to do business with us. And the United States, unlike a lot of other countries — France, will colonized Vietnam and in a way got us into it — is over there doing business with them. The United States has no intention of doing that, at least I don’t, until we have a full accounting of the POWs and MIAs.
So I do believe we’re making progress. We have more information by far, just in the last few months, than we’ve ever had before. We are trying to run down all these cases. But I am going to — all I can tell you is, I’m going to do the very best I can to run down every case and to make sure that no family is denied access to reasonable information. And I’ll follow up on that last question you made. But if you’ll give me whatever information you have, I’ll have it run down. We have people going over there all the time now and digging around. And we’re doing our best. And they’ve finally begun to open some files to us that have never before been opened.
Q Because the right questions have not been asked in the past.
THE PRESIDENT: You tell me what questions you want asked and I’ll get them asked.
Q If you would give the opportunity and promise to go into detail — I’ve been in this for 27 years with my brother, worked with both governments and the families and the American Legion and all the friends — if you would take some of our suggestions. Thank you.
(snipped the remaining that wasn’t related to this topic)
MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Mr. President. The people of San Diego thank you. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the President
For Immediate Release
July 2, 1993
Statement by the President on U.S. Policy Toward Vietnam
It has always been my firm belief that America’s highest priority in its approach toward Vietnam is to secure a full accounting on our Prisoners of War and Missing in Action.
Today, I am announcing two new steps toward that goal. The first involves access by Vietnam to the International Monetary Fund. The second is my decision to send a new, high-level delegation to Vietnam to press for further progress on unresolved POW/MIA issues. Together, these steps offer the best hope of providing America’s POW/MIA families the answers and peace of mind they deserve.
Over the past several months, I have given intense thought to how best to achieve the fullest possible accounting for our POW/MIAs and how to shape U.S. policy toward Vietnam to achieve that goal. I have met with Veterans, with the families whose loved ones have not returned and with Members of Congress who have a strong interest in this issue, including some who were held as prisoners of war.
Last night, I met with a group of impressive, dedicated representatives of veterans organizations and families who care deeply about our government’s efforts to achieve the fullest possible accounting of our missing. They share my own belief that our policy toward Vietnam must be driven not by commercial interests but by the overriding purpose of achieving further progress toward the fullest possible accounting of our POW/MIAs. Vietnam has long been a divisive issue for America. It remains so today. I know there is strong disagreement among all those with an interest in the POW/MIA issue on how best to further our mutual goal. Where there is no disagreement, however, is on the need to ensure that any decision taken is made in answer to the only relevant question: will it help us discover the truth about our missing?
One of the tragedies of this issue is that our own government has often denied unnecessarily information about this issue to the American public. That is why I have instructed all U.S. Government POW/MIA related documents to be declassified by Veterans Day of this year, except for that tiny fraction that could still affect our national security or invade the privacy of the families. I have also been working to consolidate the POW/MIA agencies and resources to enhance the efficiency of these operations and access by the public. They have a right to know and I intend to ensure they do.
Since taking office, I have reviewed the progress made to date in resolving unanswered questions concerning the fate of American service personnel who did not return from Vietnam. I have insisted on the fullest possible accounting from the Vietnamese government and pressed for further progress. As part of this effort, I dispatched General John Vessey to Vietnam last April as my Special Emissary for POW/MIA Affairs to press for further progress. In addition, Members of Congress and representatives of veterans groups have travelled to Vietnam to press for that goal.
In an effort to encourage further progress, it is appropriate at this time to recognize what the Vietnamese have done in our effort to account for our missing. Attached is a summary outing that progress. Therefore, I have decided to end our opposition to the efforts of other nations to clear Vietnam’s arrears in the IMF. I believe, as do former POWs John McCain and Douglas “Pete” Peterson and others veterans such as John Kerry and others in Congress, that such action will best serve the goal of achieving further progress toward the fullest possible accounting.
Any further steps in US-Vietnamese relations will strictly depend on further progress by the Vietnamese on the POW/MIA issue. We should not be swayed from that course; America owes no less to the brave men and women who fought in Vietnam and to their loved ones. Progress to date is simply not sufficient to warrant any change in our trade embargo or any further steps toward normalization.
In order to press for further progress and send a clear message to the Vietnamese government, I will send to Hanoi a high level delegation. The official delegation will include Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs Hershel Gober, Assistant Secretary of State Winston Lord and Lieutenant General Michael E. Ryan.
I also have invited representatives of the three largest veterans group to accompany the delegation. The American Legion, The Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Disabled American Veterans have each agreed to send representatives with the delegation and I am grateful for their willingness to participate in this important mission. In addition, I have invited the National League of Families of American Prisoners and Missing in Southeast Asia to send a representative. I have also asked our current Ambassador in Thailand, David Floyd Lambertson, who has extensive experience in Vietnam, to assist the delegation.
The delegation will make clear to the Vietnamese that any further steps in relations between our two nations depend on tangible progress on the outstanding POW/MIA cases. We insist upon efforts by the Vietnamese in four key areas:
Remains: Concrete results from efforts on their part to recover remains and repatriate American remains.
Discrepancy cases: Continued resolution of 92 discrepancy cases, live sightings and field activities.
Laos: Further assistance in implementing trilateral investigation with the Lao.
Archives: Accelerated efforts to provide all POW/MIA related documents that will help lead to genuine answers.
The individuals on this delegation share my own determination to do all we can to find the truth surrounding those who did not come home. They will press hard for results.
The delegation will also raise with the Vietnamese continuing human rights concerns and press for progress in the areas of basic freedoms, democracy and economic reform.
For many Americans, the Vietnam War left deep wounds that have yet to heal. One of the ways to help the process of healing is to help the friends and families of POWs and MIAs learn the truth. The steps I have outlined today will advance that goal.
Memorandum for: Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Prisoners of War and Missing in Action
From: John F. McCreary
Subject: Legal Misconduct and Possible Malpractice in the Select Committee
1. As a member of the Virginia State Bar, I am obliged by Disciplinary Rule DR-1-103(a) to report knowledge of misconduct by an attorney "to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violations." Under Rule IV, Paragraph 13, of the Rules for the integration of the Virginia State Bar, this obligation follows me as a member of the Bar, regardless of the location of my employment, for as long as I remain a member of the Virginia State Bar. Therefore, I am obliged, as a matter of law and under pain of discipline by the Virginia State Bar, to report to you my knowledge of misconduct and possible prima facie malpractice by attorneys on the Select Committee in ordering the destruction of Staff documents containing Staff intelligence findings on 9 April 1992 and in statements in meetings on 15 and 16 April to justify the destruction.
2. The attached Memoranda For the Record, one by myself and another by Mr. Jon D. Holstine, describe the relevant facts, which I summarize herein:
a. On 9 April 1992, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, in response to a protest by other members of the Select Committee, told the Select Committee members that "all copies" would be destroyed. This statement was made in the presence of the undersigned and of the Staff Chief Counsel who offered no protest.
b. Later on 9 April 1992, the Staff Director, Frances Zwenig, an attorney, repeated and insured the execution of Senator Kerry's order for the destruction of the Staff intelligence briefing text. I personally delivered to Mr. Barry Valentine, the Security Manager for SRB-78, the original printed version of the intelligence briefing text. I also verified that the original was destroyed by shredding in the Office of Senate Security on 10 April 1992, along with 14 copies.
c. On 15 April 1992, the Staff Chief Counsel, J. William Codinha of Massachusetts, when advised by members if the Staff about their concerns over the possible criminal consequences of destroying documents, minimized the significance of the act of destruction; ridiculed the Staff members for expressing their concerns; and replied, in response to questions about the potential consequences, "Who's the injured party," and "How are they going to find out because its classified." Mr. Codinha repeatedly defended the destruction of the documents and gave no assurances or indications that any copies of the intelligence briefing text existed.
d. On 16 April, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, Senator John Kerry, stated that he gave the order to destroy "extraneous copies of the documents" and that no one objected. Moreover, he stated that the issue was "moot" because the original remained in the Office of Senate Security "all along."
e. I subsequently learned that the Staff Director had deposited a copy of the intelligence briefing text in the Office of Senate Security at 1307 on 16 April.
3. The foregoing facts establish potentially a prima facie violation of criminal law and a pattern of violations of legal ethics by attorneys in acts of commission and omission.
a. It is hornbook law that an attorney may not direct the commission of a crime. In this incident two attorneys, one by his own admission, ordered the destruction of documents, which could be violation of criminal law.
b. Neither the Staff Chief Counsel nor any member of the Select Committee made a protest or uttered words of caution against the destruction of documents, by admission of the Chairman, Senator Kerry. The Chief Counsel has an affirmative duty to advise the Staff about the legality of its actions, and, in fact, had earlier issued the general prohibition to the Staff against document destruction.
c. The Chief Counsel's statements during the 15 April meeting to discuss the document destruction showed no regard for the legality of the action and displayed to the Staff only a concern about getting caught. By his words and actions, he presented to the Staff investigators an interpretation of the confidentiality and security rules that the rules of the Select Committee may be used to cover-up potentially unethical or illegal activity.
d. The Staff Director's action in placing an unaccounted for copy of the intelligence briefing text in the Office of Senate Security on 16 April constitutes an act to cover-up the destruction. Throughout the 16 April meeting, all three attorneys persisted in stating that the document had been on file since 9 April. This is simply not true.
4. I believe that the foregoing facts establish a pattern of grave legal misconduct - possibly including orders to commit a crime, followed by acts to justify and then to cover-up that crime. Even absent criminal liability, the behavioral pattern of the attorneys involved plays fast and loose with the Canons of Legal Ethics and establishes that one or more of the attorneys on the Select Committee are unfit to practice law. I am obliged to recommend that this report be filed with the appropriate disciplinary authorities of the State Bars in which these attorneys are members.
John F. McCreary, Esquire
Memorandum for: Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Prisoners of War and Missing in Action
From: John F. McCreary
Subject: Possible Violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, by the Select Committee and Possible Ethical Misconduct by Staff Attorneys.
1. Continuing analysis of relevant laws and further review of the events between 8 April and 16 April 1992 connected with the destruction of the Investigators' Intelligence Briefing Text strongly indicate that the order to destroy all copies of that briefing text on 9 April and the actual destruction of copies of the briefing texts plus the purging of computer files might constitute violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, which imposes criminal penalties for unlawful document destruction. Even absent a finding of criminal misconduct, statements, actions, and failures to act by the senior Staff attorneys following the 9 April briefing might constitute serious breaches of ethical standards of conduct for attorneys, in addition to violations of Senate and Select Committee rules. The potential consequences of these possible misdeeds are such that they should be brought to the attention of all members of the Select Committee, plus all Designees and Staff members who were present at the 9 April briefing.
2. The relevant section of Title 18, U.S.C., states in pertinent part: Section 2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795)
3. The facts as the undersigned and others present at the briefing recall them are presented in the attached Memorandum for the Record. A summary of those facts - and others that have been established since that Memorandum was written - follows.
a. On 8 April 1992, the Investigators' Intelligence Briefing Text was presented to Senior Staff members and Designees for whom copies were available prior to beginning the briefing. Objections to the text by the Designees prompted the Staff Director to order all persons present to leave their copies of the briefing text in Room SRB078. Subsequent events indicated that two copies had been removed without authorization.
b. On 9 April 1992, at the beginning of the meeting of the Select Committee and prior to the scheduled investigators' briefing, Senator McCain produced a copy of the intelligence briefing text, with whose contents he strongly disagreed. He charged that the briefing text had already been leaked to a POW/MIA activist, but was reassured by the Chairman that such was not the case. He replied that he was certain it would be leaked. Whereupon, the Chairman assured Senator McCain that there would be no leaks because all copies would be gathered and destroyed, and he gave orders to that effect. No senior staff member or attorney present cautioned against a possible violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, or of Senate or Select Committee Rules.
c. Following the briefing on 9 April, the Staff Director, Ms. Frances Zwenig, restated to the intelligence investigators the order to destroy the intelligence briefing text and took measures to ensure execution of the destruction order. (See paragraph 3 of the attachment.) During one telephone conversation with the undersigned, she stated that she was "acting under orders."
d. The undersigned also was instructed to delete all computer files, which Mr. Barry Valentine witnessed on 9 April.
e. In a meeting on 15 April 1992, the Staff's Chief Counsel, J. William Codinha, was advised by intelligence investigators of their concerns about the possibility that they had committed a crime by participating in the destruction of the briefing text. Mr. Codinha minimized the significance of the documents and of their destruction. He admonished the investigators for "making a mountain out of a molehill."
f. When investigators repeated their concern that the order to destroy the documents might lead to criminal charges, Mr. Codinha replied "Who's the injured party." He was told, "The 2,494 families of the unaccounted for US Servicemen, among others." Mr. Codinha then said, "Who's gonna tell them. It's classified." At that point the meeting erupted. The undersigned stated that the measure of merit was the law and what's right, not avoidance of getting caught. To which Mr. Codinha made no reply. At no time during the meeting did Mr. Codinha give any indication that any copies of the intelligence briefing text existed.
g. Investigators, thereupon, repeatedly requested actions by the Committee to clear them of any wrongdoing, such as provision of legal counsel. Mr. Codinha admitted that he was not familiar with the law and promised to look into it. He invited a memorandum from the investigators stating what they wanted. Given Mr. Codinha's statements and reactions to the possibility of criminal liability, the investigators concluded they must request appointment of an independent counsel. A memorandum making such a request and signed by all six intelligence investigators was delivered to Mr. Codinha on 16 April.
h. At 2130 on 16 April, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, convened a meeting with the intelligence investigators, who told him personally of their concern that they might have committed a crime by participating in the destruction of the briefing texts at the order of the Staff Director. Senator Kerry stated that he gave the order to destroy the documents, not the Staff Director, and that none of the Senators present at the meeting had objected. He also stated that the issue of document destruction was "moot" because the original briefing text had been deposited with the Office of Senate Security "all along." Both the Staff Director and the Chief Counsel supported this assertion by the Chairman.
i. Senator Kerry's remarks prompted follow-up investigations (See paragraphs 4 through 9 of the attachment) and inquiries that established that a copy of the text was not deposited in the Office of Senate Security until the afternoon of 16 April. The Staff Director has admitted that on the afternoon of 16 April, after receiving a copy of a memorandum from Senator Bob Smith to Senator Kerry in which Senator Smith outlined his concerns about the destruction of documents, she obtained a copy of the intelligence briefing text from the office of Senator McCain and took it to the Office of Senate Security. Office of Senate Security personnel confirmed that the Staff Director gave them an envelope, marked "Eyes Only," to be placed in her personal file. The Staff Director has admitted that the envelope contained the copy of the intelligence briefing text that she obtained from the office of Senator McCain.
3. The facts of the destruction of the intelligence briefing text would seem to fall inside the prescriptions of the Statute, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, so as to justify their referral for investigation to a competent law enforcement authority. The applicability of that Statute was debated in United States v. Poindexter, D.D.C. 1989, 725 F. Supp. 13, in connection with the Iran Contra investigation. The District Court ruled, inter alia, that the National Security Council is a public office within the meaning of the Statute and, thus, that its records and documents fell within the protection of the Statute. In light of that ruling, the Statute would seem to apply to this Senate Select Committee and its Staff. The continued existence of a "bootleg" copy of the intelligence briefing text - i.e., a copy that is not one of those made by the investigators for the purpose of briefing the Select Committee - would seem to be irrelevant to the issues of intent to destroy and willfulness; as well as to the issue of responsibility for the order to destroy all copies of the briefing text, for the attempt to carry out that order, and for the destruction that actually was accomplished in execution of that order.
4. As for the issue of misconduct by Staff attorneys, all member of the Bar swear to uphold the law. That oath may be violated by acts of omission and commission. Even without a violation of the Federal criminal statute, the actions and failures to act by senior Staff attorneys in the sequence of events connected with the destruction of the briefing text might constitute violations
of ethical standards for members of the Bar and of both Senate and Select Committee rules. The statements, actions and failures to act during and after the meeting on 15 April, when the investigators gave notice of their concern about possible criminal liability for document destruction, would seem to reflect disregard for the law and for the rules of the United States Senate.
John F. McCreary
From Publishers Weekly
Controversial former North Carolina congressman Hendon and attorney Stewart make the case that the U.S. knowingly left hundreds of POWs in Vietnam and Laos in 1973, and that every presidential administration since then has covered it up.
The main reason for the secrecy, say the authors, is the billions in war reparations demanded by the Vietnamese and promised by Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon at the Paris Peace talks. Hendon and Stewart provide a mountain of evidence, mainly intelligence reports of live sightings of American prisoners in Vietnam and Laos that make for less-than-scintillating reading. But riveting sections describe Hendons crusade on this issue in the early 1980s, including two meetings with President Reagan, pleading his case that the government free the live POWs. Hendon and Stewart directly accuse a long list of government officials of the coverup.
Among the most culpable: Kissinger, President George H.W. Bush, Senators John McCain and John Kerry, Gen. Colin Powell, former secretary of state George Schultz and former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Its a chore wading through the live-sighting reports and the massive, detailed endnotes, but the descriptions of Hendons unsuccessful personal mission provide an intriguing storyand carry the ring of truth. 36 b&w photos not seen by PW. (June 1)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
The dramatic history of living American soldiers left in Vietnam, and the first full account of the circumstances that left them there An Enormous Crime is nothing less than shocking. Based on thousands of pages of public and previously classified documents, it makes an utterly convincing case that when the American government withdrew its forces from Vietnam, it knowingly abandoned hundreds of POWs to their fate. The product of twenty-five years of research by former Congressman Bill Hendon and attorney Elizabeth A. Stewart, An Enormous Crime brilliantly exposes
the reasons why these American soldiers and airmen were held back by the North Vietnamese at Operation Homecoming in 1973 and what these men have endured since.
Despite hundreds of postwar sightings and intelligence reports telling of Americans being held captive throughout Vietnam and Laos, Washington did nothing. And despite numerous secret military signals and codes sent from the desperate POWs themselves, the Pentagon did not act.
Even in 1988, a U.S. spy satellite passing over Sam Neua Province, Laos, spotted the twelve-foot-tall letters USA and immediately beneath them a huge, highly classified Vietnam War-era USAF/USN Escape & Evasion code in a rice paddy in a narrow mountain valley. The letters USA appeared to have been dug out of the ground, while the code appeared to have been fashioned from rice straw (see jacket photograph).
Tragically, the brave men who constructed these codes have not yet come home. Nor have any of the other American POWs who the postwar intelligence shows have laid down similar codes, secret messages, and secret authenticators in rice paddies and fields and garden plots and along trails in both Laos and Vietnam.
An Enormous Crime is based on open-source documents and
> reports, and thousands of declassified intelligence reports and satellite imagery, as well as author interviews and personal experience. It is a singular work, telling a story unlike any other in our modern history: ugly, harrowing, and true.
From the Bay of Pigs, where John and Robert Kennedy struck a
deal with Fidel Castro that led to freedom for the Bay of Pigs prisoners, to the Paris Peace Accords, in which the authors argue Kissinger and Nixon sold American soldiers down the river for political gain, to a continued reluctance to revisit the possibility of reclaiming any men who might
still survive, we have a story untold for decades. And with An Enormous Crime we have for the first time a comprehensive history of Americas leaders in their worst hour; of life-and-death decision making based on politics, not intelligence; and of men lost to their families and the
country they serve, betrayed by their own leaders.
Great stuff, Cal! It’s in the FR archives now.
I think you might want to ping the vets. ;)
And yet by the late 80s Vietnam was one of the fastest growing economies in SE Asia. So to get this straight, ol' Dunc doesn't believe in free trade to create liberty, a capitalistic free market stance. How does Dunc think the idea of liberty and freedom gets to the people? By starving them out and establishing embargoes?
Coming up next after Edwards event (15 minutes):
09:21 PM EDT
Public Affairs Event
New Hampshire Republican Party Event
Republican Party, New Hampshire
Duncan Hunter , R-CA
Tommy Thompson , R-WI
No he doesn’t believe in FREE trade. He believes in FAIR trade.
And if you look at the material I added, you will see that Vietnam was a communist enemy that still held our men. Foreign monies influenced the embargo to be lifted. I can add the info on Lippo and Huang if you want to go there with this thread. I even have the list of how politicians voted. I didn’t add that either because I didn’t want to take away from the point of this thread. Hunter said no. No to the enemies. He doesn’t trade blood for dollars.
Hells bells, we starved the Soviet Union economically. Kept them in a bass akwards economy by severe restirctions on trade, and we spent 100s of billions on rearming, challenging them to try to keep up. Reagan knew they would collapse. Most politicians, dems, republicans, and especially Harry “red” Brownes’ Libertarians thought Reagan was a fool.
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.