I cannot say how disappointing it is to see this very smart man play dumb to no conceivable good purpose.
Ho's move was pure propaganda aimed at the most stupid with entirely deceptive intent and publicly accepted both then and thereafter by lying or stupid (or both) fellow-travelers, radicals with both eyes well open, and liberals glad of any way to undermine the cold war by downplaying the ugly realities of communism.
Ho's move was pure propaganda aimed at the most stupid with entirely deceptive intent and publicly accepted both then and thereafter by lying or stupid (or both) fellow-travelers, radicals with both eyes well open, and liberals glad of any way to undermine the cold war by downplaying the ugly realities of communism.
Obama was not forced by diplomatic circumstance to reluctantly nod at this canard.
What should he have done when Truong Tan Sang, president of communist Vietnam, handed him that mendacious letter from Ho to the American President, laying claim to both the American and French Revolutions?
He should have burned it on the spot before the man's eyes.
Well, all right.
He should at any rate not have let the brief press conference after the meeting pass without politely mentioning the incident and, also politely, denouncing the letter as a propaganda ploy and a lie.
Instead, he did the exact opposite.
He seized the chance to make this lie his own, flaunting his Bill Ayers side.
He seized the chance to make this lie his own, flaunting his Bill Ayers side.
In the approving and even enthusiastic words of the President, that he most certainly did not have to say, “Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson.”
One has to wonder.
Did he skip the revolutionary festival in Havana the other day only because of scheduling conflicts?
Did he skip the revolutionary festival in Havana the other day only because of scheduling conflicts?
Conservative media are quite reasonably pointing to this as proof of the president's inner radicalism, though one has to wonder why they bother or what they hope to gain by this.
Radosh
in WSJ
Still, one fellow writing in NRO, of all places, evidently
fell for it, just like a useful idiot of the old days.
The only conceivable defense against the charge he is a complete moron is to plead the ignorance of youth for whom the Vietnam War is an ugly
episode of ugly Americanism, thankfully of long ago.
At least some liberals have joined their forebears along with Obama in this offensively stupid lie.
Steve
M: It's an objective fact!
A new generation of liberals with the same soft spot for the reds that so many of them had, back in the day.
How many liberals are really "radicals" - that is to say, reds, in disguise?
Obviously, Obama is not the only one.
Exactly this sort of manipulation of US opinion in order to support inflection of US policy in favor of red regimes is what the "crazy right-wing looonatics" meant by "subversion," by the way, during the cold war.
God almighty.
No wonder I voted Republican in 1972.
And did not regret it either during or after Watergate.
A new generation of liberals with the same soft spot for the reds that so many of them had, back in the day.
How many liberals are really "radicals" - that is to say, reds, in disguise?
Obviously, Obama is not the only one.
Exactly this sort of manipulation of US opinion in order to support inflection of US policy in favor of red regimes is what the "crazy right-wing looonatics" meant by "subversion," by the way, during the cold war.
God almighty.
No wonder I voted Republican in 1972.
And did not regret it either during or after Watergate.
No comments:
Post a Comment