| NYT | 0 | |
| Miami Herald | 0 | |
| Don Surber | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| WaPo | Obama Urges Groups to Stop Attacks [on Dems who oppose ObamaCare] |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Change" You Can Believe In:
"Nixon didn’t try to do that. They couldn't control (the media). They didn’t try. [...] What the hell do they think we are, puppets?"
- Liberal opinion writer Helen Thomas, describing the Obama admin's penchant for heavily scripting public appearances & press conferences - 7/1/09
Proof positive: The NYT editorial board lives in caves
I kept in mind while reading this editorial masquerading as a straight news piece that it was published in the NYT, but even at that, I was absolutely stunned to read their revisionist history tactics on the Vietnam war while at the same time bashing Bush over the head for his speech yesterday to the VFW on how we had to learn the lessons from Vietnam and not leave Iraq like we did ‘nam, or it would be just as disastrous. This part was especially breathtaking:
In urging Americans to stay the course in Iraq, Mr. Bush is challenging the historical memory that the pullout from Vietnam had few negative repercussions for the United States and its allies
What?
Jules Crittenden sets ‘em straight here:
1975: U.S. ally South Vietnam, overrun by North Vietnamese regulars when the ammo and the air cover stopped. U.S. allies Laos and Cambodia, taken over by Chinese and Soviet-backed Communist insurgencies.
1975-early 1980s: Untold thousands upon thousands in Vietnam and Laos executed or sent to “re-education” camps. Hundreds of thousands flee, in overcrowded boats that sank or were attacked by pirates; swimming the Mekong to Thailand; walking through minefields to Thailand. Phnom Penn emptied out by gun-toting teenagers, who drove the people into the fields were 2 million were worked and starved to death, or executed outright. (NYT in its article astonishingly presents this as “tens of thousands” while Bush in his speech cites “hundreds of thousands.”)
1979: Afghanistan, invaded by an emboldened Soviet Union, which knew a humiliated, war-weary United States led by a handwringing peacenik would do nothing.
1979: U.S. embassy in Tehran overrun by “students” including the current president of Iran. American diplomatic staff held hostage, subjected to isolation and beatings, for 444 days. Handwringing peacenik president did nothing. A single rescue attempt failed disastrously.
1979-2001: Muslim extremists attack and kill U.S. military missions and personnel in Lebanon, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen. U.S. withdraws, occasionally fires missiles. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, citing Vietnam, Beirut and Mogadishu, base their strategies on the notion that the United States has no stomach for a fight and will blink.
Shockingly enough, flip flopping Democrats, many of whom never resist the opportunity to make comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam themselves, objected to the comparisons Bush made:
Democrats, not surprisingly, rejected the comparison, including John Kerry, the Vietnam War veteran who ran unsuccessfully against Mr. Bush in 2004. “Invoking the tragedy of Vietnam to defend the failed policy in Iraq is as irresponsible as it is ignorant of the realities of both of those wars” Mr. Kerry said.
Hmm. But apparently invoking the tragedy of Vietnam in an effort to get people to support efforts at cutting and running from Iraq, as Kerry did during the 2004 campaign, is somehow acceptable. Got it.
As a refresher, John Kerry is also another bloodbath-after-Vietnam denialist, just like the NYT:
One may take the position that genocide would not be the likely result of an American retreat from Iraq. That is the view of Mr. Obama’s Massachusetts colleague John Kerry, the 2004 presidential nominee. Mr. Kerry, who served in Vietnam before turning against that war, voted for the Iraq war before turning against it. He draws on the Vietnam experience in making the case that the outcome of a U.S. pullout from Iraq would not be that bad. “We heard that argument over and over again about the bloodbath that would engulf the entire Southeast Asia, and it didn’t happen,” he said recently.
Do these nitwits actually think that they can get away with attempting to rewrite history? Well – maybe they can, but only if we let them. These attempts are shocking displays of arrogance and disrespect of readers, among who even casual observers of history should know what happened in Southeast Asia after we cut and run.
The NYT has another piece in today’s paper, noting that “historians” are “questioning” the President’s analogies, even though they admit he is factually correct. Like this one:
“It is undoubtedly true that America’s failure in Vietnam led to catastrophic consequences in the region, especially in Cambodia” said David C. Hendrickson, a specialist on the history of American foreign policy at Colorado College in Colorado Springs.
Bbbbut:
“But there are a couple of further points that need weighing” he added. “One is that the Khmer Rouge would never have come to power in the absence of the war in Vietnam — this dark force arose out of the circumstances of the war, was in a deep sense created by the war. The same thing has happened in the Middle East today. Foreign occupation of Iraq has created far more terrorists than it has deterred.”
IOW, Khmer Rouge was America’s fault.
More from the article:
The record of death and dislocation after the American withdrawal from Vietnam ranks high among the tragedies of the last century, with an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians, about one-fifth of the population, dying under the rule of Pol Pot, and an estimated 1.5 million Vietnamese and other Indochinese becoming refugees. Estimates of the number of Vietnamese who were sent to prison camps after the war have ranged widely, from 50,000 to more than 400,000, and some accounts have said that tens of thousands
How strange that on the very same day the NYT prints a piece downplaying the bloody aftermath of the US cutting and running from ‘nam they also run a piece that debunks their own claim.
Even more odd – and I noted this in my post on this topic last night – is why the MSM is treating Bush’s “we need to learn lessons from Vietnam” speech as if it’s the first time he’s ever made the comparison. It’s not. And the NYT of all news outlets should know that, considering they’re the ones who reported the comments when he made them, while he was IN Vietnam. I’d like to think that perhaps yesterday was a slow news day, thus the ‘big story’ about the President making the comparison, but it wasn’t a slow news day and of course the MSM, led by the NYT, never misses an opportunity to try and play “gotcha” with something the President asserts, especially as it relates to the global war on terror.
SSDD, I’m afraid.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
11 Responses to “Proof positive: The NYT editorial board lives in caves”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
These people have no more sense of right and wrong than a tree frog. Boat people? What boat people?
I saw Jules’s post and it was very good.
The only good thing about being 55 going on 56 is that I can actually remember those days. I even remember John Kerry going on TV and saying that if we left Viet Nam the fighting would end. Liar.
Those people seemed to think there was a war in Viet Nam because we were there, when in fact we were there because there was a war in Viet Nam. Not the same thing at all.
They will say anything to obtain and to retain power. Nothing like some flat out lies about the result of our withdrawl and cutting off of aid to South Vietnam.
There’s that liberal compassion showing through again!
“So what if millions of people were tortured and butchered, it really didn’t affect US that much!”
- NC… the left only admits to the existance of the “dead brown people” when they have a way of blaming it on Bush. Viet Nam, its reasons, history, and the manner of resolution, has to be the most lied about, and historically revised event, in History.
- Since ‘Nam is the one and only “victory” the Left can even begin to claim in a distorted sort of way, the millions of brown people that were outright murdered because we left as a direct result of Leftist sedition here in the states, simply cannot be allowed to “exist”. If you needed any more evidence of the fallacies of Ill-Liberal thinking, and phoney caring, that should suffice. All propaganda, all the time, for the “greater good” of the cause.
- This signals the approach the far Left, Dems, and the laim-brain press have decided to take, to head off any sort of Iraqi success. Its a ratcheting up of the Iraq = VietNam meme, because they’re afraid it’s their last hope.
- Pelosi held a brain storming meeting last week with all the key Dem leaders to come up with a new set of talking points, and find a way to move the party to a safer position on Iraq. What we’re seeing is the shift, and new approach as it develops. If things continue to improve because of the surge, I don’t think it’s going to work, no matter how many propaganda pieces the NYT and AP run. They have to try anything they can to keep Bush back on his heels, or suffer a massive blowback, which could carry over to the 2008 election cycle.
- BBH –
Maybe the lying sacks masquerading as journalists were implying that since the US abandoned Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam, allowing thousands upon thousands to be slaughtered by the commie basturds, they no longer see those countries as our allies.
Good point, BBH. You constantly hear the left spewing nonsense like 100,000 Iraqis killed by us since the war there began. It’s a proven lie, but it doesn’t stop them from parroting the garbage – see tommy’s recent rants a few threads ago.
But when the communists commited wholesale and fully documented murder on a far larger scale than even their fantasies, they hadn’t a thing to say. No word of disapproval or even acknowledgement. Funny how they still do this today, even though their new cuddle-mates are the islamofascists and not the Khmer Rouge. Seems like the rule is, as long as you hate the USA, you have a pass on every crime, all the way up to genocide.
- I know I’ve said it before, but I absolutely believe that events are shaping up that will absolutely bury the Dems in the next election. Reasons:
- Historically, ignoring every other factor, America has NEVER changed the party in the White house during a time of war, or even the threat, or close aftermath of war.
- The Dems have literally handed the Reps a virtual gold mine of devastating political talking points, mainly because of their wild roll of the dice on Iraq.
- The Dems are fielding a group of candidates, all of whom have such serious baggage, i.e Hillary with her changeable act, and history of the Clinton lies, and Obama with next to zero experience. Edwards is toast. at least Kerry knows that once you lose an election, you’re used goods in politics generally, but with the left you’re dead meat. Al Gore the same. Bill Richards is just not known enough. The rest are bit players. The Dems are choosing who will get their brains beat in by Rudi.
- On the Rep side the situation would be similar, except for America’s Mayor. Thompson is too little too late, and only has a chance at the VP slot. Rudi is the lead dog that makes the race anyway. Condi would absolutely seal the deal.
- Rudi will be the next POTUS, with Thompson, Condi, or Romney as his running mate. He will serve two terms.
- BBH –
BBH:
My fear is that the Republicans will kill their chances by eating their own. If they had stuck together the first Clinton would never have made it to the White House.
- Normally I would agree with you Terrye, and its certainly true in the case of Clinton’s years, but with Rudy, barring a complete breakdown, I just don’t see it happening. The debates to date have been a mild preview of how things will go in the actual election cycle. I see Rudy on the stage with Hillary, Him relaxed in his disarming common sense manner of speaking, and her in a stiff stilted rehearsed form, emulating GWB. The difference is she won’t have a muddled flip flopper to go against. Obama could probably hold his own at times, but would be prone to make impulsive mistakes, just as he’s already done, the lack of experience slipping through, and in any event I don’t see him getting the nomination. A very outside chance at the VP slot, if it’s not given to one of the 2nd tier as a party favor.
- Anyway you look at it point, set, and match to Rudy.
- BTW, I think Rudy’s already been told by top party insiders. It shows in the steady as you go manner they are presenting him, and his numbers from the very beginning, both in the party, and against Hillary, have stayed steady. There’s a ways to go before the real fireworks start, with state primaries. It was telling from the low level flack he took for skipping Iowa, and it did nothing to push down his numbers. In that, hes already setting precedence.
- Instead of the normal “off year” switchover, this could be another Reagan run by the Reps, due largely to what looks like bad political choices by the Dems. They most probably will even bite it when this Congress is reviewed. I wouldn’t want to be them.
- BBH -
Rudy is going to have major problems with social conservatives. Dr Dobson has already said he won’t endorse him. Whether you like them or not, social conservatives make up a large part of the GOP.
It could come down to a battle of subtraction: Rudy losing the religious right, and Hillary losing the anti-war left.
Re the post: Well done, Sister. The left somehow thinks that they “own” Vietnam. The reality, I think, is that if in the wake of Watergate Congress hadn’t cut off aid to South Vietnam and prevented our Air Force and Naval air from helping out in that final NVA offensive, the South might well have been able to hold on.
Not only did defeat in SWoutheast Asial lead to the boat people and the mass-murders in Cambodia, the Soviet Union saw it as an American weakness and spent the rest of theat decade flexing its muscles. They built up their military, funded insurgencies around the world, and of course invaded Afghanistan. In short, they were on a roll. It took Reagan to set things straight, and it sure wasn’t easy. But the liberals want us to forget that part too.
We need to start referring to John Kerry, and apparently the New York Times, as Holocaust Deniers. Surely the term is applicable to other genocides that exceed the million-man mark?